Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Merkava]

Yes, they do get cleared. Closing an investigation clears that person. Your second sentence is how that's done. "New evidence" is a different situation, meaning not the one the person was cleared for.

And no, these situations are NOT the same. Whatsoever. Unless you want to argue that pickpocketing a tootsie roll pop is the "same situation" because both involve crimes.

Wait a sec. A decision not to prosecute is the same as "clearing a person of wrong doing"? Is that what Bob Mueller did? Law enforcement either prosecutes or it doesn't, right?

Also, the usage of the term "cleared" is merely colloquial, correct? It could mean different things to different people. And any usage of the term "cleared" has to be temporary, or indefinite at best. It implies no protection from double jeopardy. To that effect, the fact that a person can be prosecuted upon discovery of new evidence for an alleged crime that they were previously "cleared" of illustrates the flimsiness of that standard. That makes sense correct?

I could accept the statement that "The DOJ "cleared" Hillary Clinton", but I'd ask for a statement from them to that effect, particularly one that uses the term "cleared". I doubt you'd find it.

I don't intend to relitigate that entire discussion, I just wanted to point out that my interpretation of the Espionage Act, (that it doesn't require the information in question to be classified) is now being echoed by those on the left who want to (correctly) investigate DJT.

And thank you for your reply on my question regarding the logistics of sending a former POTUS to jail.

Edit - To be clear, I didn't mean to say that the two situations were the same. Far from it, I merely meant to say that the fact of the espionage act not regarding information to be classified was the same. That is all. Thanks.

[cubby]

Exclusive: Trump Raid Documents Could Reveal Informants on U.S. Payroll

Umm?

In pursuing the unprecedented search of Donald Trump's residence on Monday, the FBI was seeking to retrieve Top Secret and "compartmented" documents dealing with intelligence "sources and methods," two federal government sources tell Newsweek—documents with the potential to reveal U.S. intelligence sources, including human sources on the American government payroll.

So Trump had info on spies basically how they operated and payroll information. Thus this material could out spies. Gee wonder who would want this.

This all goes back to Putin always having had leverage over Trump, from years back, like we saw in so many pieces of evidence. We'll almost never know the full story, but all the pieces point to several things having always been correct, including (and I hate to have to bring this up) the Pee Tape.

Basically, Putin was Trump's handler. Not kidding. Totally terrifying.

[Voidism]

https://www.newsweek.com/moscow-alre...-media-1733440

Now I'm 99% sure this is just Russia trolling but...



Again, very, very unlikely but also...there is a slim possibility that some of these documents may have found their way to Russia.

Don't shoot the messenger, I'm just sharing what state-run Russian media are saying.

Eh, it's just another way to fuck with westerners minds. Putin, despite popular belief, always pays two sides to make a mess. They are playing both sides equally. Hell, he even bought his own opposition in Russia to control.

OODA-loop is when someone is too busy thinking too much that they can't act. This is what they want you to do. Even when you're aware of it. I'd not share anything they say tbh. I know we _want_ them to be in collusion with Trump but...

Push out as much info and alternative theories all the time everywhere, that's how they work. It doesn't matter. Might be they work together. Might not be. Might be that Democrats have played into his games perfectly. Might not. *shrug*

The main thing is to not give Putin any legitimacy.

[cubby]

Wait a sec. A decision not to prosecute is the same as "clearing a person of wrong doing"? Is that what Bob Mueller did? Law enforcement either prosecutes or it doesn't, right?

Also, the usage of the term "cleared" is merely colloquial, correct? It could mean different things to different people. And any usage of the term "cleared" has to be temporary, or indefinite at best. It implies no protection from double jeopardy. To that effect, the fact that a person can be prosecuted upon discovery of new evidence for an alleged crime that they were previously "cleared" of illustrates the flimsiness of that standard. That makes sense correct?

I could accept the statement that "The DOJ "cleared" Hillary Clinton", but I'd ask for a statement from them to that effect, particularly one that uses the term "cleared". I doubt you'd find it.

I don't intend to relitigate that entire discussion, I just wanted to point out that my interpretation of the Espionage Act, (that it doesn't require the information in question to be classified) is now being echoed by those on the left who want to (correctly) investigate DJT.

And thank you for your reply on my question regarding the logistics of sending a former POTUS to jail.

Edit - To be clear, I didn't mean to say that the two situations were the same. Far from it, I merely meant to say that the fact of the espionage act not regarding information to be classified was the same. That is all. Thanks.

It's not black and white, ever. Hillary was cleared. Mueller couldn't continue the prosecution because of the DoJ letter. Every single answer in the legal and law enforcement orbit is always "it depends".

You're welcome - it will [hopefully] be an interesting problem for the Federal Department of Corrections to solve. I really hope they have to.

[Merkava]

This all goes back to Putin always having had leverage over Trump, from years back, like we saw in so many pieces of evidence. We'll almost never know the full story, but all the pieces point to several things having always been correct, including (and I hate to have to bring this up) the Pee Tape.

Basically, Putin was Trump's handler. Not kidding. Totally terrifying.

Bill Kristol raised the question of Trump posessing documents that might be used to blackmail otherf countries, ie. info on Saudi Arabia's nuclear program, or the role in Khashoggis murder, anything that could be used to keep the money flowing into Mara Lago. I think thats pretty interesting.

- - - Updated - - -

It's not black and white, ever. Hillary was cleared. Mueller couldn't continue the prosecution because of the DoJ letter. Every single answer in the legal and law enforcement orbit is always "it depends".

Yes I understand that Mueller was bound by the DoJ memo on prosecuting a sitting Potus. I remember Barr saying he wasn't too.

Fair enough, I'll accept your opinion on this, and therefore apologies to @Breccia

[Gorsameth]

Barr lied about the contents of Mueller's report to the point where Mueller had to publicly call him out that he was misleading the public.

Barr's word is worthless.

[Breccia]

I don't intend to relitigate that entire discussion

Yes, you do. You're doing it right now. It looks a lot like deflection, and it's also off-topic.

Meanwhile: as FOX News themselves are saying, there's a lot of chatter about Trump giving info to Putin. It fits the brand, of course, and Trump would rather pay Putin back for getting him almost elected in 2016 than live the rest of his half-life in a hospital. But what info? Nuclear secrets, sure, makes sense. Informants? Again, makes sense.

Kompromat on Macron? That's new and interesting.

A former Hillary Clinton aide heavily implied that former President Donald Trump had dirt on the French president and that it could be useful to Russian President Vladimir Putin, Fox News reported.

Jennifer Palmieri, who was the director of communications for Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign, did not mention Trump or Putin by name.

But a tweet, shared on Friday night, suggested that information on French President Emmanuel Macron, which was found during the FBI raid of Mar-a-Lago, could be maliciously used by a world leader.

"Racking my brain here," Palmieri tweeted. "Which world leader would find Kompromat on Macron valuable?"

Palmieri, in her tweet, appears to suggest that the information is "kompromat" —embarrassing or damaging information that can be used to blackmail or discredit public figures. There is not currently enough information on the seized file to prove or disprove this.

"Whoa whoa whoa, this is all wild speculation."

So are all the Trump defenses. I think this is completely fair. I mean, Trump could make this all go away. He said it was all declassified. He could just tell us what was in the documents. The fact that he isn't is his problem.

[postman1782]

What is a realistic outcome for all of this? Is there a reasonable chance that he will be convicted and punished? Garland is up against the clock. One Trumper on the jury = mistrial. If he's convicted it'll go to the Supreme Court for appeal where it's possible they could overturn the conviction (although I doubt they would). And if convicted, would they actually send him to jail? On the one hand it would be a watershed moment in US history, demonstrating that no-one is above the law. On the other hand, the political landscape could be blighted by the biggest shitstorm it's weathered in an extremely long time. But then, if he's convicted and not jailed, what would that say about US justice? The consequences of that too would be far reaching.

I can guarantee that if he is convicted, it will never go to the Supreme Court. Because no supreme court justice wants to be tied to a fucking violator of the espionage act, even these shitty 4 that back Trump.

[Merkava]

Barr lied about the contents of Mueller's report to the point where Mueller had to publicly call him out that he was misleading the public.

Barr's word is worthless.

Yes, that was my point entirely. That Barr sort of preemptively went on TV and totally mischaracterized Muellers findings.

Edit - It was like Barr gave a book report on a book that only he had read. Therefore, he felt like he was free to lie about it all he wanted.

[postman1782]

For what it's worth, I made the very same argument 6 years ago.
https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...1#post43152641

For the record, I think they both broke the law. (probably)
Anyway, havent posted in a long time, hope everyone is doing well.

The thing is, Republicans investigated her, and cleared her. Including Republican AGs and the congress. Everything she had that was classified, she gave back. She also didn't have possible nuclear weapons documentation.

[Merkava]

Yes, you do. You're doing it right now. It looks a lot like deflection, and it's also off-topic.

Again. Deflection from what? You think I'm defending Trump? Seriously? I'm merely pointing out that a previous interpretation of the Espionage act and a current interpretation are consistent. That's all. If you can't see that then I'm sorry. I've made my point, you can have the last word.

- - - Updated - - -

The thing is, Republicans investigated her, and cleared her. Including Republican AGs and the congress. Everything she had that was classified, she gave back. She also didn't have possible nuclear weapons documentation.

Again, someone that doesn't understand the point. My entire point is that the Espionage Act is not concerned with classified material. A point I made 6 years ago, and a point being made by legal experts today. That. is. All.

[Breccia]

I'm banking a lot of "citing FOX News" points.

FOX News says Trump took those classified documents, because he was too busy with the murderous insurrection and the fallout.

Which he caused.

"Your honor, the reason my client fled the bank with bags of other people's money is because the bank was on fire."
"But he set the fire."
"It was still important to save the money. In his house. Under lock and key. Then to never tell anyone."

[cubby]

Meanwhile: as FOX News themselves are saying, there's a lot of chatter about Trump giving info to Putin. It fits the brand, of course, and Trump would rather pay Putin back for getting him almost elected in 2016 than live the rest of his half-life in a hospital. But what info? Nuclear secrets, sure, makes sense. Informants? Again, makes sense.

Kompromat on Macron? That's new and interesting.

A former Hillary Clinton aide heavily implied that former President Donald Trump had dirt on the French president and that it could be useful to Russian President Vladimir Putin, Fox News reported.

Jennifer Palmieri, who was the director of communications for Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign, did not mention Trump or Putin by name.

But a tweet, shared on Friday night, suggested that information on French President Emmanuel Macron, which was found during the FBI raid of Mar-a-Lago, could be maliciously used by a world leader.

"Racking my brain here," Palmieri tweeted. "Which world leader would find Kompromat on Macron valuable?"

Palmieri, in her tweet, appears to suggest that the information is "kompromat" —embarrassing or damaging information that can be used to blackmail or discredit public figures. There is not currently enough information on the seized file to prove or disprove this.

"Whoa whoa whoa, this is all wild speculation."

So are all the Trump defenses. I think this is completely fair. I mean, Trump could make this all go away. He said it was all declassified. He could just tell us what was in the documents. The fact that he isn't is his problem.

We have barely scratched the surface on the documents there seized from Trump and we're already seeing obvious ties to Putin.

Trump's defenses, such as they were, are indeed collapsing. The MGT's of the world will never acknowledge reality, but a lot of GQP'ers seem to be stepping away from this fiasco.

[Captain N]

We have barely scratched the surface on the documents there seized from Trump and we're already seeing obvious ties to Putin.

Trump's defenses, such as they were, are indeed collapsing. The MGT's of the world will never acknowledge reality, but a lot of GQP'ers seem to be stepping away from this fiasco.

Can anything be done to those GQP's who are stepping away if they previously supported what Trump did?

[Poopymonster]

It's not black and white, ever. Hillary was cleared. Mueller couldn't continue the prosecution because of the DoJ letter. Every single answer in the legal and law enforcement orbit is always "it depends".

You're welcome - it will [hopefully] be an interesting problem for the Federal Department of Corrections to solve. I really hope they have to.

Depending on which crimes are prosecuted, and which are convicted, it could be a moot point.
I mean, a capitol offense conviction wouldn't need anyone to fatty sit them after the punishment is enforced.

[cubby]

Can anything be done to those GQP's who are stepping away if they previously supported what Trump did?

Not really. And, even worse, if they were supporting Trump prior to these Felony Treason charges, then they aren't smart enough to really go anywhere else other than DeSantis' camp. Frankly, we'll never be done with people who follow Trump. They are entirely detached from reality, and cannot begin to fathom an idea that they might be wrong in their viewpoints.

- - - Updated - - -

Depending on which crimes are prosecuted, and which are convicted, it could be a moot point.
I mean, a capitol offense conviction wouldn't need anyone to fatty sit them after the punishment is enforced.

Unfortunately, the crimes the warrant serviced weren't capital, so we won't be able to see his much-deserving fat ass on death row.

- - - Updated - - -

Unfortunately, the crimes the warrant serviced weren't capital, so we won't be able to see his much-deserving fat ass on death row.

Although it seems that former CIA Directors would disagree with me. ‘Sounds about Right’: Ex-CIA Chief Michael Hayden Implies Trump Should Be Executed for Taking Classified Docs. I would be happy to be wrong about this - seeing Trump brought up on Capital Charges would be the best case scenario here.

[Gorsameth]

Death row takes forever. there is no way Trump would survive until his execution, he would die from old age and his horrible health first.

And while sitting on death row he would still be under house arrest rather then in jail so... whats the difference?

[Poopymonster]

Death row takes forever. there is no way Trump would survive until his execution, he would die from old age and his horrible health first.

And while sitting on death row he would still be under house arrest rather then in jail so... whats the difference?

Solitary would be the only way to ensure our country and it's secrets would be safe.
Go ahead, appeal, drag it out for years.

[Templar 331]

They would - the charges are so clean and objective, it would be hard at this point to find a scenario in which he could effectively dodge them all. The issue of prison is a difficult one. Assuming Trump is convicted of a crime that requires jail time, I see three possible scenarios:

1. Federal Minimum Security. Secret Service can be rotated in on regular shifts. Since all of this would be historically unprecedented, making these kinds of arrangements would be possible.

2. Military Prison. I am least knowledgeable about how this would work. However, the security of minimum security prisons would more than likely be "better" than federal ones, and would be easier to set up whatever the Secret Service would need. Most of this option is guesswork on my part.

3. Home incarceration. Unfortunately this is the most likely scenario. Easy, still "prison", and far more less-controversial felons have been granted this option. Stuck at Mar-a-lago with no visitors, no television, no communications.

Couldn't we use one of those concentration camps he had built on the border that was used for illegal immigrants? Give all the immigrants in one of them green cards just to spite him.

[fwc577]

Trump reportedly asked Garland how he could cool things down prior to the release of the warrant. Hey Donny, how about next time you comply with the original fucking subpoena? Get fucked, bitch.