Trump legal cases

[cnbengal]

4 hours ago, Jamie_B said:

So it stands to reason that he is guilty of falsifying the documents. Seems pretty open and shut?

Not really,  they did not prove he falsified any document, and if he did it's a mistameanor. They tried to tie this to a federal election law which is where the felony comes from but all attempts to do this in history have been struck down by the Appeals and Supreme Court

[Jamie_B]

6 minutes ago, cnbengal said:

Not really,  they did not prove he falsified any document, and if he did it's a mistameanor. They tried to tie this to a federal election law which is where the felony comes from but all attempts to do this in history have been struck down by the Appeals and Supreme Court

 

 

He was literally charged with 34 counts of falsification of business records in the first degree. 

 

 

Edit: He was charged with a felony and not a misdemeanor for the following....

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-charges-conviction-guilty-verdict/

 

"Under New York law, falsification of business records is a crime when the records are altered with an intent to defraud. To be charged as a felony, prosecutors must also show that the offender intended to "commit another crime" or "aid or conceal" another crime when falsifying records.

 

In Trump's case, prosecutors said that other crime was a violation of a New York election law that makes it illegal for "any two or more persons" to "conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means," as Justice Juan Merchan explained in his instructions to the jury."

[cnbengal]

Jamie, as far as the documents case goes,  one was president and was allowed to view and have them, the other one was not.

Now an argument can be made for the whole not turning them in, but as far as it goes Joe biden had documents from when he was vice president and was not allowed to view or have them under any circumstance. So you explain to me why one is being charged and the other isn't hence the view of selective prosecution.

[Jamie_B]

Just now, cnbengal said:

Jamie, as far as the documents case goes,  one was president and was allowed to view and have them, the other one was not.

Now an argument can be made for the whole not turning them in, but as far as it goes Joe biden had documents from when he was vice president and was not allowed to view or have them under any circumstance. So you explain to me why one is being charged and the other isn't hence the view of selective prosecution.

 

Your talking to someone with the highest level of clearance you can get and has been read in to various classified programs over the 12 years Ive had this clearance. So let me explain 

 

He had the right to view the documents as was Biden as VP. Neither were allowed to keep them. Biden gave them back when he realized he had them, Trump lied that he had them.

[Jamie_B]

Also this nonsense that Trump has said he can declassify them at the waive of a hand. 

 

Yes the President has a right to declassify anything he wants to declassify.

 

But there is a process he has to go through to do it, he can't just wave his hand and say they were declassified.

 

 

He did not go through that process with this stuff, and it was not declassified.

[cnbengal]

Still it's the same crime, ones charged, one is not. 

[cnbengal]

And once again, as far as New York law tying it to an election law, that has been tried in many states in the past and they've always been overturned in higher courts. You still can't get around the fact that it was beyond the statute of limitations. That itself can get this thing overturned. Not to mention his constitutional right were violated, btw.

 

[Jamie_B]

Just now, cnbengal said:

Still it's the same crime, ones charged, one is not. 

 

Personally, I don't think there should be any reason to take these documents outside of a sciff, unless you have transport rights and are transporting them to another sciff. I imagine both of them had that right. 

 

But it is literally not the same. Biden gave them back when he realized he had them. The government gave Trump plenty of time and opportunity to give back the documents he took, he denied having them. The damned FBI had to raid his residence to get them. 

[cnbengal]

And yet he's being charged with having the documents, Not giving them back is a secondary charge. The main one is the same crime that Biden did and yes I agree with you neither one should have had them.

[Jamie_B]

1 minute ago, cnbengal said:

And once again, as far as New York law tying it to an election law, that has been tried in many states in the past and they've always been overturned in higher courts. You still can't get around the fact that it was beyond the statute of limitations. That itself can get this thing overturned. Not to mention his constitutional right were violated, btw.

 

 

It was tied to election law because he was trying to hide something that might have hurt him in the election. Had he just done what Clinton did and lied about it without falsifying anything or paying anyone off, he probably would not be in this mess.

 

As far as the statute of limitations Vox explains...

 

https://www.vox.com/politics/353111/trump-trial-verdict-criticisms-wrongly-convicted

 

4) Even if Trump were guilty, the statute of limitations on his offense has already expired. 

The statute of limitations on misdemeanor business records falsification is two years; for the felony version, it’s five years. 

Trump committed his alleged offense in 2017. But New York law holds that the clock on its statute of limitations stops when a defendant is “continuously” outside of the state. Therefore, it is plausible that the years Trump spent primarily in the White House and Mar-a-Lago do not count against the clock. 

Still, even under this interpretation, Syracuse University law professor Gregory Germain argues that two years have certainly passed since Trump allegedly falsified records related to his hush money payment. In Germain’s view, it “is not clear whether the felony can stand when the misdemeanor is time barred” because the “felony statute requires showing that the misdemeanor was committed, since the felony is really a penalty enhancement on the misdemeanor.”

[Jamie_B]

4 minutes ago, cnbengal said:

And yet he's being charged with having the documents, Not giving them back is a secondary charge. The main one is the same crime that Biden did and yes I agree with you neither one should have had them.

 

The lying about having them is the problem here as far as the law is concerned, had he not done that and given them back he would not have a problem because the government gives a lot of deference (right word?) to a President/VP because of their position.

 

Personally, I think there are FAR too many at the top who are far too loose with how they treat these things, but that is just my opinion.

[cnbengal]

And as far as the FBI, they had been to his house previously, they knew that they were secure. They knew that they were in a safe and secure and yes, he was giving them push back about returning them, i get that part. And yet the White House sent the FBi on an early morning raid with agents with assult weapons ready to breach the house in a complete show of force. But when it was Biden, they set up a meeting. "When can we come get these please?" And they were not secure. So you don't see a difference in that.

[Jamie_B]

1 minute ago, cnbengal said:

And as far as the FBI, they had been to his house previously, they knew that they were secure. They knew that they were in a safe and secure and yes, he was giving them push back about returning them, i get that part. And yet the White House sent the FBi on an early morning raid with agents with assult weapons ready to breach the house in a complete show of force. But when it was Biden, they set up a meeting. "When can we come get these please?" And they were not secure. So you don't see a difference in that.

 

This was after numerous times of the government asking for them back and him denying he had them. Biden gave them back right away.

 

Also how do you think that storing them in a bathroom is secure?

 

There is nothing secure about this.

 

[cnbengal]

Actually, Clinton did pay women off.He paid PaulaJones and another lady's name who escapes me, Broderick I believe. And I get all the legal mumbo jumbo about the Misdemeanor VS felony. and statue of limitations. But far too many legal experts both democrat and republican have said none of this will stand up to a higher court scrutiny.

[cnbengal]

1 minute ago, Jamie_B said:

 

This was after numerous times of the government asking for them back and him denying he had them. Biden gave them back right away.

 

Also how do you think that storing them in a bathroom is secure?

 

There is nothing secure about this.

 

And an open garage and kitchen and study and spread all through unlocked doors in an open house is? According to agents and lawyers the bathroom was locked

[Jamie_B]

12 minutes ago, cnbengal said:

Actually, Clinton did pay women off.He paid PaulaJones and another lady's name who escapes me, Broderick I believe. And I get all the legal mumbo jumbo about the Misdemeanor VS felony. and statue of limitations. But far too many legal experts both democrat and republican have said none of this will stand up to a higher court scrutiny.

 

Fair I forgot he paid Jones, as part of a settlement, not hush money. Here is what it says the difference was.

 

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/comparing-donald-trumps-hush-money-trial-john-edwards/story?id=109506871

 

The Clinton settlement with Paula Jones offers few similarities with the current Trump trial beyond allegations of sexual misconduct.

"I don't think the Clinton case is comparable," Brett Kappel, a campaign finance law and government ethics specialist, told ABC News.

Jones filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against then-President Clinton in 1994, alleging he propositioned her and exposed himself in a hotel room years earlier when Clinton was governor of Arkansas and she was a state employee -- an accusation he denied.

A four-year legal battle ensued, at one point reaching the Supreme Court, before a settlement was reached in 1998.

Unlike the secretive nature of hush money payments, text of the agreement was released showing Clinton paid $850,000 to end the civil lawsuit and that he continued to deny any wrongdoing.

"A settlement is not the same as a hush money payment," said Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor and president of West Coast Trial Lawyers.

[cnbengal]

Look, we can discuss this thing to death. But there's way too much legal history to show that this case is going to be overturned. Too many experts agree upon that. The fact that this thing is even going on right now, regardless of what political side of the aisle you're on is election interference. Bragg and the white house both know it. That's why the department of justice and everybody else prior to this didn't want to even smell this case.

[Jamie_B]

2 minutes ago, cnbengal said:

And an open garage and kitchen and study and spread all through unlocked doors in an open house is? According to agents and lawyers the bathroom was locked

 

That is literally not how this works. You cant just lock a room and declare them safe.

 

There is a whole process where you have to have a government sciff put into your house, if you want to work on or store classified things.

 

During the Pandemic the place I was working had to continue it's classified work, but they had to manage numbers so people were not as in danger as they could have been.

 

We went to a rotating schedule, were we would have to go into the office one week and study things that are not classified but are related to our jobs the other week. Because I literally was not allowed to bring classified stuff home (could you imagine?). During my "off weeks" I used that time to study my grad school stuff as it was related to my job, but I could not work on anything that was my actual job because I couldn't bring that stuff home.

 

There is nothing secure about what I see in that picture. 

[Jamie_B]

2 minutes ago, cnbengal said:

Look, we can discuss this thing to death. But there's way too much legal history to show that this case is going to be overturned. Too many experts agree upon that. The fact that this thing is even going on right now, regardless of what political side of the aisle you're on is election interference. Bragg and the white house both know it. That's why the department of justice and everybody else prior to this didn't want to even smell this case.

 

Ive seen arguments on both side that this may or may not be overturned. Hell Alan Dershowitz who represented Trump at one time doesn't think its going to be overturned because of what he amounts to as "cancel culture". So I literally have no idea which way it will go.

 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/alan-dershowitz-has-quite-a-theory-as-to-why-trumps-verdict-will-stick

[cnbengal]

It will just happen after the election and they, the DNC, know it. You don't think that screams 3rd world country. Like I said before Putin would be proud. Ask his political opponents, if you can find any alive. 

[cnbengal]

5 minutes ago, Jamie_B said:

 

That is literally not how this works. You cant just lock a room and declare them safe.

 

There is a whole process where you have to have a government sciff put into your house, if you want to work on or store classified things.

 

During the Pandemic the place I was working had to continue it's classified work, but they had to manage numbers so people were not as in danger as they could have been.

 

We went to a rotating schedule, were we would have to go into the office one week and study things that are not classified but are related to our jobs the other week. Because I literally was not allowed to bring classified stuff home (could you imagine?). During my "off weeks" I used that time to study my grad school stuff as it was related to my job, but I could not work on anything that was my actual job because I couldn't bring that stuff home.

 

There is nothing secure about what I see in that picture. 

But a garage next to his vetted is?

[Jamie_B]

Just now, cnbengal said:

But a garage next to his vetted is?

No it's not either, and from a security standpoint, I have a problem with that too. But again this is about him being asked again and again to give them back and him lying that he even had them.

[cnbengal]

4 minutes ago, Jamie_B said:

 

Ive seen arguments on both side that this may or may not be overturned. Hell Alan Dershowitz who represented Trump at one time doesn't think its going to be overturned because of what he amounts to as "cancel culture". So I literally have no idea which way it will go.

 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/alan-dershowitz-has-quite-a-theory-as-to-why-trumps-verdict-will-stick

At the end tho they still violated his constitutional rights, that will overturn it.

[Jamie_B]

Just now, cnbengal said:

At the end tho they still violated his constitutional rights, that will overturn it.

 

What rights were violated?

[cnbengal]

2 minutes ago, Jamie_B said:

No it's not either, and from a security standpoint, I have a problem with that too. But again this is about him being asked again and again to give them back and him lying that he even had them.

But that's not what he is being charged with, it's possession same as Biden.

Do you know that Jack Smith's high profile cases all have been overturned for legal Inproprieties. He has a history.  So we'll see.