Reap the whirlwind

[Farfromgeneva]

“Future Candidate”? Don’t mean doodlie squat, Old Soviet. Is not and SHOULD NOT be an issue in this type of RICO prosecution. You think the news is bad now, your head hasn’t really begun to spin yet, comrade. Stay closely tuned.

It means everything. Otherwise, it'd be just another Sandy nothingBerger, Petraeus wheel book review with his biographer/mistress, Deutch's home computer document dump, or Clinton's yoga email mixup.

Actually? I agree with Old Salt here. If Trump is running for President next year? The Feds have to leave him alone UNLESS it's the easiest prosecution the world has ever seen. And I'm pretty sure it's not said layup.

Because if you don't get that conviction? That's a serious problem for our democracy.

Trump knows this, of course.

Same reason Comey didn't go after Hillary during an election campaign. Comey was right to do that. And Hillary paid the price for her games.....so in the end, Justice prevailed, and Hillary is gone.

I'll be stunned if the DoJ presses charges. Get the documents back, and move on.

I wouldn't surprise me if the plan was to get the all of the classified materials back and then assess the damages, if any.
But with the former DOPUS and all of the other investigations going on hard to totally rule out a connection with other cases they are working on.

They returned his passports apparently before he squawked. Wouldn't surprise me if that's how he found out they took them. Two were expired. BTW passports are the property of the US Government and not the holder. They also appear to have an independent team of investigators looking through everything to determine if there are any other documents that are not directly related to the initial search including any attorney/client privileged materials, if any.

Do have to love all of the double standards now being invoked as opposed to what was espoused in the past when the targets were different.

Process crime

[Farfromgeneva]

Ok, I disagree with most of the above.

It looks to me like they are going to indict, and it will indeed be slam dunk.
(on the evidence, not necessarily the jury, but likely overwhelming evidence)

They made clear why they're not releasing the affidavit because this is an ongoing investigation, so this was not just about retrieving these documents.

The only thing I'm wondering about (in terms of timing of indictment) is whether that ongoing investigation involves even more nefarious activities than the violations expressed in the warrant (these are slam dunk provable). But it's entirely possible that they are have strong basis to believe that Trump actually revealed classified information to others...if so, that's a much bigger case.

I don't think Trump's various claims/defenses (ie they were de-classified) are remotely going to worry the prosecutors.

Nor do I think they are going to be intimidated into not indicting by the threats of violence, indeed that may be all the more reason to follow through on the clearly provable crimes. Failing to indict is the loss of democracy and the rule of law...it would be a capitulation to the fascism threat.

The interesting bit is: does he decide to actually run now in order to try to avoid prosecution if it gets there? Do your risk losing, then your money train dries up pretty fast and get indicted or do you stay out of 24 but remain a potential candidate and keep that floating in hope that tips the scale towards non prosecution.

[MDlaxfan76]

Ok, I disagree with most of the above.

It looks to me like they are going to indict, and it will indeed be slam dunk.
(on the evidence, not necessarily the jury, but likely overwhelming evidence)

They made clear why they're not releasing the affidavit because this is an ongoing investigation, so this was not just about retrieving these documents.

The only thing I'm wondering about (in terms of timing of indictment) is whether that ongoing investigation involves even more nefarious activities than the violations expressed in the warrant (these are slam dunk provable). But it's entirely possible that they are have strong basis to believe that Trump actually revealed classified information to others...if so, that's a much bigger case.

I don't think Trump's various claims/defenses (ie they were de-classified) are remotely going to worry the prosecutors.

Nor do I think they are going to be intimidated into not indicting by the threats of violence, indeed that may be all the more reason to follow through on the clearly provable crimes. Failing to indict is the loss of democracy and the rule of law...it would be a capitulation to the fascism threat.

The interesting bit is: does he decide to actually run now in order to try to avoid prosecution if it gets there? Do your risk losing, then your money train dries up pretty fast and get indicted or do you stay out of 24 but remain a potential candidate and keep that floating in hope that tips the scale towards non prosecution.

I don't think they hold off indictment just because he announces, we're way off the election season and announcing a candidacy can't be an automatic 'out' for prosecution.

I think the Comey example is quite bogus...they simply didn't have enough of a strong case. Not before the election, nor after she lost.

This is a very different case.

[PizzaSnake]

Ok, I disagree with most of the above.

It looks to me like they are going to indict, and it will indeed be slam dunk.
(on the evidence, not necessarily the jury, but likely overwhelming evidence)

They made clear why they're not releasing the affidavit because this is an ongoing investigation, so this was not just about retrieving these documents.

The only thing I'm wondering about (in terms of timing of indictment) is whether that ongoing investigation involves even more nefarious activities than the violations expressed in the warrant (these are slam dunk provable). But it's entirely possible that they already have strong basis to believe that Trump actually revealed classified information to others...if so, that's a much bigger case.

I don't think Trump's various claims/defenses (ie they were de-classified) are remotely going to worry the prosecutors.

Nor do I think they are going to be intimidated into not indicting by the threats of violence, indeed that may be all the more reason to follow through on the clearly provable crimes. Failing to indict is the loss of democracy and the rule of law...it would be a capitulation to the fascism threat.

Not prosecuting hastens the reaping…

[old salt]

Ok, I disagree with most of the above.

It looks to me like they are going to indict, and it will indeed be slam dunk.
(on the evidence, not necessarily the jury, but likely overwhelming evidence)

They made clear why they're not releasing the affidavit because this is an ongoing investigation, so this was not just about retrieving these documents.

The only thing I'm wondering about (in terms of timing of indictment) is whether that ongoing investigation involves even more nefarious activities than the violations expressed in the warrant (these are slam dunk provable). But it's entirely possible that they already have strong basis to believe that Trump actually revealed classified information to others...if so, that's a much bigger case.

I don't think Trump's various claims/defenses (ie they were de-classified) are remotely going to worry the prosecutors.

Nor do I think they are going to be intimidated into not indicting by the threats of violence, indeed that may be all the more reason to follow through on the clearly provable crimes. Failing to indict is the loss of democracy and the rule of law...it would be a capitulation to the fascism threat.

Just out of curiousity --

-- did you feel that HRC should have been indicted for mishandling classified matl ?

-- did you feel a plea to a misdemeanor was sufficient for Petraeus ?

[njbill]

As to Hillary, there is no doubt in my mind that even if there was the weakest of criminal cases, Trump’s DOJ would have indicted her.

While Republicans can argue that she got preferable treatment because Obama was in the White House (I don’t think she did, but I understand the argument), that doesn’t explain why Trump’s DOJ didn’t indict her if there was any kind of case. Seems pretty obvious that Trump‘s DOJ agreed there wasn’t enough there for a criminal prosecution.

[a fan]

I don't think they hold off indictment just because he announces, we're way off the election season and announcing a candidacy can't be an automatic 'out' for prosecution.

Disagree.

What happens if they don't get a conviction, MDLax? The DoJ can't just shrug their shoulders and say "whoops".

[MDlaxfan76]

I don't think they hold off indictment just because he announces, we're way off the election season and announcing a candidacy can't be an automatic 'out' for prosecution.

Disagree.

What happens if they don't get a conviction, MDLax? The DoJ can't just shrug their shoulders and say "whoops".

ohhh, I certainly agree that it needs to be slam dunk, but a decision to not indict, despite overwhelming evidence, because you are worried about jury nullification, is capitulation to the fascists.

I suspect that they have truly overwhelming evidence.
Thus, they really should indict.

The caveat is that they may have a larger case they are working towards, so won't indict until they have that nailed down as well.

That said, they could choose to not indict because of that intimidation...sure as heck hope that's not the case.

[MDlaxfan76]

As to Hillary, there is no doubt in my mind that even if there was the weakest of criminal cases, Trump’s DOJ would have indicted her.

That's my read. I was entirely in favor of nailing her for any crimes they had her dead to rights on, but my read, as you describe below, is that DOJ simply didn't have the goods to make the case with high confidence. Even under Trump's AG's, they simply didn't have a provable case.

While Republicans can argue that she got preferable treatment because Obama was in the White House (I don’t think she did, but I understand the argument), that doesn’t explain why Trump’s DOJ didn’t indict her if there was any kind of case. Seems pretty obvious that Trump‘s DOJ agreed there wasn’t enough there for a criminal prosecution.

[MDlaxfan76]

Ok, I disagree with most of the above.

It looks to me like they are going to indict, and it will indeed be slam dunk.
(on the evidence, not necessarily the jury, but likely overwhelming evidence)

They made clear why they're not releasing the affidavit because this is an ongoing investigation, so this was not just about retrieving these documents.

The only thing I'm wondering about (in terms of timing of indictment) is whether that ongoing investigation involves even more nefarious activities than the violations expressed in the warrant (these are slam dunk provable). But it's entirely possible that they already have strong basis to believe that Trump actually revealed classified information to others...if so, that's a much bigger case.

I don't think Trump's various claims/defenses (ie they were de-classified) are remotely going to worry the prosecutors.

Nor do I think they are going to be intimidated into not indicting by the threats of violence, indeed that may be all the more reason to follow through on the clearly provable crimes. Failing to indict is the loss of democracy and the rule of law...it would be a capitulation to the fascism threat.

Just out of curiousity --

-- did you feel that HRC should have been indicted for mishandling classified matl ?

answered above...I don't think they had a provable case, though I'd have applauded if they had been able to nail her...slippery.

But I also don't think her mishandling was of remotely the same caliber of activity as Trump's...I think it's a phony analogy. And those partisans who attempt to make it only reveal the depths of their hypocrisy.

-- did you feel a plea to a misdemeanor was sufficient for Petraeus ?

I'm not sure. I think he deserved the disgrace from his weak moment, but I also felt that he'd earned through his service a significant measure of respect and forgiveness. And again, I don't think the magnitude of these matters is remotely comparable. And, of course, Petraeus plead guilty, apologized and asked for forgiveness...Trump just lies and lies and lies in response to being caught red-handed.

[Farfromgeneva]

I don't think they hold off indictment just because he announces, we're way off the election season and announcing a candidacy can't be an automatic 'out' for prosecution.

Disagree.

What happens if they don't get a conviction, MDLax? The DoJ can't just shrug their shoulders and say "whoops".

Yes, indictments aren’t supposed to lead to convictions 100% of the time. Put the evidence on the table and let the chips fall where they may if they believe in it.

[Seacoaster(1)]

I don't think they hold off indictment just because he announces, we're way off the election season and announcing a candidacy can't be an automatic 'out' for prosecution.

Disagree.

What happens if they don't get a conviction, MDLax? The DoJ can't just shrug their shoulders and say "whoops".

Yes, indictments aren’t supposed to lead to convictions 100% of the time. Put the evidence on the table and let the chips fall where they may if they believe in it.

Agree with FFG; if in the judgment of the professional prosecutors, the subject committed a crime warranting a penalty, then DOJ is effectively obligated to vindicate the statutes on the books.

[a fan]

I don't think they hold off indictment just because he announces, we're way off the election season and announcing a candidacy can't be an automatic 'out' for prosecution.

Disagree.

What happens if they don't get a conviction, MDLax? The DoJ can't just shrug their shoulders and say "whoops".

Yes, indictments aren’t supposed to lead to convictions 100% of the time. Put the evidence on the table and let the chips fall where they may if they believe in it.

Agree with FFG; if in the judgment of the professional prosecutors, the subject committed a crime warranting a penalty, then DOJ is effectively obligated to vindicate the statutes on the books.

Well the one argument in your favor is that Trump hasn't announced that he's running.

I'd guess that will change momentarily.

[HooDat]

I don't think they hold off indictment just because he announces, we're way off the election season and announcing a candidacy can't be an automatic 'out' for prosecution.

Disagree.

What happens if they don't get a conviction, MDLax? The DoJ can't just shrug their shoulders and say "whoops".

Yes, indictments aren’t supposed to lead to convictions 100% of the time. Put the evidence on the table and let the chips fall where they may if they believe in it.

Agree with FFG; if in the judgment of the professional prosecutors, the subject committed a crime warranting a penalty, then DOJ is effectively obligated to vindicate the statutes on the books.

Agree with all this. What undermines the perception of rule of law is casting the cloud and not giving the accused his day in court. If he is guilty - nail him for it. If you think he is guilty - prosecute. But it needs to be a speedy trial.

Oh, and if you are wrong and he is acquitted, fasten your seat-belts for an emboldened cult-of-Trump and the Orange one back in the White House.

You know producers at CNN are drooling over the prospect of that outcome....

[dislaxxic]

Agree with FFG and SC.AF, are you arguing that the infamous “OLC Memo” extends from sitting presidents to candidates for president?? In what universe does that make any sense? Sure, it will be a chit show, the place where Trump dwells, but come on man, why in the world would a simple candidacy protect ANYONE from criminal activity? The guy is on the verge of a RICO indictment, fercrissakes. This seems to be an element of the ever devolving effect DLT has had on our democracy, none of his depredations, from the jerk grabbing caper to hiring his daughter as a senior counselor to extorting a foreign head of state to inciting a coup to coddling tyrants can sink this weasel…I feel like we should be TIGHTENING our standards, not wiping them out because this guy is a professional victim.

..

[HooDat]

Agree with FFG and SC.AF, are you arguing that the infamous “OLC Memo” extends from sitting presidents to candidates for president?? In what universe does that make any sense? Sure, it will be a chit show, the place where Trump dwells, but come on man, why in the world would a simple candidacy protect ANYONE from criminal activity? The guy is on the verge of a RICO indictment, fercrissakes. This seems to be an element of the ever devolving effect DLT has had on our democracy, none of his depredations, from the jerk grabbing caper to hiring his daughter as a senior counselor to extorting a foreign head of state to inciting a coup to coddling tyrants can sink this weasel…I feel like we should be TIGHTENING our standards, not wiping them out because this guy is a professional victim.

..

August 16, 2022 2:59PM Central Time ---- HooDat and dislaxxic agree on something!

[a fan]

Agree with FFG and SC.AF, are you arguing that the infamous “OLC Memo” extends from sitting presidents to candidates for president?? In what universe does that make any sense? Sure, it will be a chit show, the place where Trump dwells, but come on man, why in the world would a simple candidacy protect ANYONE from criminal activity?

Because if you don't convict, you've just F'ed over the candidate, and stuck it to his/her supporters.

And set the table to go after candidates for the next election.

If this is as much of a no brainer prosecution as you think, Diss? Indict away!

[Kismet]

Another problem for the former DOPUS and his election fraud crew

News reports reveal that Trump’s election lawyers copied sensitive voting machine data in multiple battleground states — a criminal felony — as part of their “secretive” operation to attempt to undo the election.

Tampering with voting machines even with the help of locals is still illegal.

[Seacoaster(1)]

Another problem for the former DOPUS and his election fraud crew

News reports reveal that Trump’s election lawyers copied sensitive voting machine data in multiple battleground states — a criminal felony — as part of their “secretive” operation to attempt to undo the election.

Tampering with voting machines even with the help of locals is still illegal.

I posted the Washington Post's story on this yesterday in, I think, the Conservative Ideology thread...and cannot believe people aren't talking about it. It is one of the most brazen things I have read about for some time. At the very time when they are propounding the Big Lie, losing in Courts everywhere, finding fake electors, and defaming Dominion, Powell and Krak'ed Krakens are misappropriating data and structures from stat voting machines. Michigan has already told the world that they have taken those machines out of commission for the upcoming elections. The GOP is basically a criminal RICO enterprise.

[dislaxxic]

Agree with FFG and SC.AF, are you arguing that the infamous “OLC Memo” extends from sitting presidents to candidates for president?? In what universe does that make any sense? Sure, it will be a chit show, the place where Trump dwells, but come on man, why in the world would a simple candidacy protect ANYONE from criminal activity?

Because if you don't convict, you've just F'ed over the candidate, and stuck it to his/her supporters.

And set the table to go after candidates for the next election.

If this is as much of a no brainer prosecution as you think, Diss? Indict away!

Of course I’m not saying induct on the theft of sensitive government documents alone, that charge is evidently something rare. As MD has pointed out, this little tussle is but a trifle on the LONG list of criminal behavior we see from this guy. As someone else correctly pointed out, this raid may well be related to other investigations…and it’s why I said I think a RICO statute indictment may be the best avenue of collecting all this dumassery into one action. That may explain why it’s taking so darn long…this is one of the, if not THE, largest criminal conspiracy of all time…

Hyperbole?

..