• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How long before Trump is arrested?

How long before Trump is arrested


  • Total voters
    90
It’s not going to work they way you would like it to.

So trump shouldn't be investigated for crimes? What is the central position of conservatives here? I ask because when you take into account the sum of their arguments, no avenue for investigating and (possibly) prosecuting him appears to exist.
 
That is one of the big reasons I do not want him to run again.
I don't believe he can win given all of the negative baggage he would be dragging behind him.
FFS, you don't want him to run again because you don't think he can win??? I don't want Trump to run again because I do not believe a man that would attempt a violent coup to stay in power has any business in position position of power again.
 
You don't know he actually violated these statutes. Not yet. He is apparently suspected of doing so based on the warrant, but we really do not know what was in the materials that were taken.

Even so, I simply do not believe Garland will charge him unless he did something beyond store the information.

You still do not get it. The materials existence at Trump's residence has been proven to be a fact. It was found. So your comment they do not know what was in the materials that were taken is false. They do and found them and have now taken them back. During the search they could not confiscate the materials until they ascertained they matched those listed on the warrant. You can't seize something you don't verify as being seizable. Its only seizable if you identify it as such.

Now your second sentence let me focus on. Storing the information is the crime. Trumps motives as to why he stored it are not relevant for the determining he had materials off premises he was not allowed to have.,

The political argument that Hilary was not charged so Trump won't be is not applicable as the offenses are not the same. You need to compare the laws Clinton violated with the one's Trump did. They are not the same.

On a moral level or a political level you can make an argument that Clinton was not charged for political reasons so Trump should not be but that is not how the law works. Its how people wanting to break laws and justify it politically work.

In fact Clinton was not charged because there was no evidence of information in her hands. One of her aides was indeed charged and convicted and put in jail 3 years. She herself was loudly condemned for her idiocy. What she did was not justified and the fact there was insufficient evidence does not mean she was let go for political reasons. She was let go for lack of evidence. That is because her malfeasance was using an unsecured internet to communicate NOT store information. She did not import into her storage system on her personal. email actual documents. She did however engage in inter-personal emails that while not attached directly to documents could none the less have been intercepted and used to compromise state security.

In Trump's case he had physical boxes of documents. They were seized and now returned. There is a major difference.

The wording in the statutes he violate do not allow physical transfer of the documents to his personal residence. If in fact he had documents on a USB not in boxes, he could still have them and would not be charged.

The physical storage of information was a deliberate act. It was an act by Trump showing he did not believe the laws pertaining to the physical site the documents had to remain in applied to him. He felt the fact he was a President gave him immunity. There is no process of immunity. Clinton was not immune, he is not immune no President is. For immunity to exist the statute must say so in writing. Statutory law must state immunity for the immunity to exist.

These are basic legal principles. You can't infer laws are not made to be enforced-it has to say right in the statute's wording it does not have to be enforced for that discretion to exist.

Garland has no discretionary powers, Its not how the law works. In criminal law if you have insufficient evidence the case does not go to trial. In this case because its an absolute liability statute. the process of the warrant enforcement simultaneously verifies the existence of the evidence of the crime. Its not an ordinary crime standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt with motive being a defense.

A political decision to ignore what Trump did is no longer possible. It was only possible prior to the warrant being obtained. Once the warrant was obtained any option to not do anything ended.

This action is deliberate in that sense by the DOJ. They are not joking around. They set the stage once they found the materials which they can not now ignore.

Whether they choose to connect the materials to prove another set of crimes other than storage outside government is another story. The improper storage of materials at Trump's residence proving his violation of existing statutes is a legal moot point. The only question is when he is charged not if he is charged . Whether this set of charges is added to others are dealt with in isolation is another question that remains to be seen.
 
Is that what I said? Sheesh - public education has really put a dagger in people's ability to comprehend what they read anymore.

BTW - how do you know
1) the docs were "illegally siezed?" Do you actually believe what the main stream media is feeding you?
2) the docs are "illegally possessed?" Same question - the main stream media?
3) what the docs even are? Same question again - the main stream media?

smh
SCI documents never are to be removed from the secure location they are kept. How did they suddenly appear at Mar a Lago?
 
Yeah, did he 1) steal them? 2) Did he even possess them? and, 3) how do you know either?
If they were held at his residence, yes he stole them. The documents belong to the federal government, not Trump. We know he possessed them, because there were in fact government documents seized at his residence.
 
I am not inferring that Trump is innocent of his transgressions.
I am clearly stating that the vast majority of those who opine on his alleged crimes are like sharks in the water that smell blood and want to tear their prey apart because that is what hungry sharks do.
They want to be the judge, jury, and executioner.
Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty.?

These blood-thirsty villagers from medieval towns need entertainment to satisfy their desire for vengeance.
Picture the crazed citizens of Jerusalem a couple of thousand years ago watching Christ stumble by with a cross on his shoulders. What were they hoping for? A miracle to save him?
I personally am hoping he gets to finally face Justice. Do I feel he is guilty of numerous criminal acts, yeah, but if I was on the jury l could weight the facts with an open mind.
 
I agree. The reactions (on both sides) would be very strong.

Since when do mobs rule the US? Since when are Americans afraid so afraid of themselves they won't enforce the rules of law all must follow including your President for justice to prevail?

Isn't it ironic that the basic fundamental principles that enunciate Trump can not be allowed to be above the law come from Republicans and conservatives as you can see below in the examples I provide?

Where are those conservatives now? Where are those Republicans now?

What is their excuse for their silence as Trump continues to break laws and the FBI is attacked by a Trump extremist?

The silence is deafening and if you think its going to get Trump re-elected and this shit to continue think again.

Is this how you make America great again-break have your President break its laws and abuse the power that comes from the trust people bestowed upon him? What a role model.

Your country has a choice to make.

You can endorse a person who feels the Presidency allows him to break laws and be beyond accountability for his actions or you can endorse a candidate who believes in humility that comes with power and so knows every law she or he is sworn to uphold means just that-it doesn't mean in one breath you swear to uphold the law, then in the next breath break it when it does not suit your agenda.

Have you Americans lost any semblance of why you created a country-to prevent tyrants from ruling you?

Your very democratic and legal institutions will not survive if you cheer on those who break the laws and make a mockery of your democratic principles.






1660438484282.png
1660438788981.png
1660438928265.png
 
Last edited:
Are you a legal professional? Because so far I've got the word of the director of the FBI vs the word of Cpwill.

I have indeed interacted with this particular world professionally, however, the direct text is with me on this one.
 
It sure don't take much to lather up a bunch of tards. All you have to do is mention Trump and they go into a frenzy.

Clue, Hillary had far more of the same type of documents than Trump had and what happened to her?
 
I have indeed interacted with this particular world professionally, however, the direct text is with me on this one.
Do tell.
 
SCI documents never are to be removed from the secure location they are kept. How did they suddenly appear at Mar a Lago?
To answer that question you would then need to ask, why did the people who knew President Trump was breaking the law remain silent and how do we assure in the future such people do NOT remain silent and uphold the very laws they were supposed to.

We already know why Trump broke the law-because he felt as President the laws of the land do not apply to him.

We also know that the people who remain silent include Republican senators and congresspersons and Trump followers.

Tyranny is always possible when you have silence.

So how now Clara do we get people to stand up and demand and expect better from their politicians and leaders?

How do we challenge those who argue that breaking the law is acceptable if it suits one's political agenda?

I am afraid Clara for many Trump supporters, breaking the law as long as its Trump does it is acceptable.

You have heard the basic argument from the Trump cultists and that is since others break laws and are dishonest, Trump can be as well.

You live in a country where what is considered acceptable by Trump cultists, is simply what Trump tells them is acceptable.

Isn't it ironic the pack is always led by the alpha with the most inflammed buttocks.

1660440516605.png
1660440589015.png
1660440658396.png
 
You still do not get it. The materials existence at Trump's residence has been proven to be a fact. It was found. So your comment they do not know what was in the materials that were taken is false.
No, I said "you" don't know what they took. No one on this forum knows.

They do and found them and have now taken them back. During the search they could not confiscate the materials until they ascertained they matched those listed on the warrant. You can't seize something you don't verify as being seizable. Its only seizable if you identify it as such.

Not an argument I was making
Now your second sentence let me focus on. Storing the information is the crime. Trumps motives as to why he stored it are not relevant for the determining he had materials off premises he was not allowed to have.,

Once again, not an argument I was making beyond that I do not believe he will be charged for simply storing the materials at MAL.
The political argument that Hilary was not charged<snip>

I have not mentioned Hillary nor would I.

The rest of your post really has little to do with what I was actually discussing.
 
It sure don't take much to lather up a bunch of tards. All you have to do is mention Trump and they go into a frenzy.

Clue, Hillary had far more of the same type of documents than Trump had and what happened to her?
That it simply isn't true.

Bradley Moss, a Washington-based lawyer who works on national security cases, said the cases of Clinton and Trump are significantly different.

"Trump took properly marked hard copy classified documents from the White House, shipped them to Florida, and stored them in an unsecured location at his residence," Moss said.

The presence of classified information in Clinton’s emails was less obvious.

"The e-mails were never marked as classified because these were communications from unclassified government accounts," Moss said.


Moreover, the government asked Trump for those classified materials and he did not provide them. A grand jury subpoenaed them and he did not provide them and he has his attorneys attest that he didn't have them. Moreover, the nature of the classified materials Trump illegally possessed was far more critical to U.S. national security than anything Hillary had in her emails.

What Hillary did was bad, what Trump has done is infinitely worse. Now, you can tell yourself whatever stories you want to tell yourself about Trump. I assure you though, history will not judge him how you see him.
 

James Comey says: Negligence and Extreme Negligence aren't enough, and it isn't enough that they did it while being negligent, and while being extremely careless; if you can't prove deliberate criminal intent, it doesn't violate the statute.

cpwill says: You don't need criminal intent to violate the statute, you only need gross negligence.

18 U.S. Code § 793 says:[/URL]
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

That's why they were careful to say "Extreme Carelessness" and "Negligence" is what they could prove. Mind you, there is no legal standard of extreme carelessness relating to the handling of classified information; [URL=https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/04/politics/peter-strzok-james-comey]Peter Strzok apparently made it up when he used it to replace "Gross Negligence", specifically so they could avoid admitting she had broken the law in a way they could charge.


A former top counterintelligence expert at the FBI, now at the center of a political uproar for exchanging private messages that appeared to mock President Donald Trump, changed a key phrase in former FBI Director James Comey’s description of how former secretary of state Hillary Clinton handled classified information, according to US officials familiar with the matter. Electronic records show Peter Strzok, who led the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private email server as the No. 2 official in the counterintelligence division, changed Comey’s earlier draft language describing Clinton’s actions as “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless,”....


Strzok was also texting his mistress at the time promising he would stop Trump from becoming president. Now, I understand the motivation - I didn't want Trump to be President either. But that's a clear twisting of the legal standard to arrive at the politically preferred conclusion.
 
Last edited:
James Comey says: Negligence and Extreme Negligence aren't enough, and it isn't enough that they did it while being negligent, and while being extremely careless; if you can't prove deliberate criminal intent, it doesn't violate the statute.

cpwill says: You don't need criminal intent to violate the statute, you only need gross negligence.

18 U.S. Code § 793 says:[/URL]
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

That's why they were careful to say "Extreme Carelessness" and "Negligence" is what they could prove. Mind you, there is no legal standard of extreme carelessness relating to the handling of classified information; [URL=https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/04/politics/peter-strzok-james-comey]Peter Strzok apparently made it up when he used it to replace "Gross Negligence", specifically so they could avoid admitting she had broken the law in a way they could charge.


A former top counterintelligence expert at the FBI, now at the center of a political uproar for exchanging private messages that appeared to mock President Donald Trump, changed a key phrase in former FBI Director James Comey’s description of how former secretary of state Hillary Clinton handled classified information, according to US officials familiar with the matter. Electronic records show Peter Strzok, who led the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private email server as the No. 2 official in the counterintelligence division, changed Comey’s earlier draft language describing Clinton’s actions as “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless,”....


Strzok was also texting his mistress at the time promising he would stop Trump from becoming president. Now, I understand the motivation - I didn't want Trump to be President either. But that's a clear twisting of the legal standard to arrive at the politically preferred conclusion.
Cool, now look at (a) and (b), which feature "intent" quite vividly.
 
Your very democratic and legal institutions will not survive if you cheer on those who break the laws and make a mockery of your democratic principles.
That entire Biden family is a pretty clear example of this. But as yet, the legal institutions are doing a stellar job of sheltering/colluding with them.
 
-snip-

Strzok was also texting his mistress at the time promising he would stop Trump from becoming president. Now, I understand the motivation - I didn't want Trump to be President either.



No, Strzok did not promise to "stop Trump from becoming president" ....

December 9, 2019
"..Mr. Horowitz had earlier uncovered the fact that Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page had sent text messages to each other expressing animus toward Mr. Trump. He also found messages by Mr. Clinesmith indicating that he did not like Mr. Trump or his policies. The findings led special counsel Robert S. Mueller III to remove Mr. Strzok and Mr. Clinesmith from the special counsel team.

..messages demonstrated bad judgment and cast a cloud over the bureau, Mr. Horowitz found no evidence that the personal political views of these officials influenced the steps they took with the Russia investigation.."

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/12/politics/lisa-page-peter-strzok-insurance-policy/index.html
March 12, 2019
When former FBI lawyer Lisa Page and former FBI agent Peter Strzok discussed a so-called “insurance policy” involving then-candidate Donald Trump and the Russia investigation in 2016, they were discussing how quickly to proceed with the probe, Page told lawmakers last year.

Page told House lawmakers in a closed-door interview that the text message about an “insurance policy” if Trump won the 2016 election — which Republicans have cited to point to the anti-Trump bias the investigators exhibited — was a reference to the fact that the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation into whether members of Trump’s team were colluding with Russia would take on a greater significance if he was in the White House.


“If he is not elected, then, to the extent that the Russians were colluding with members of his team, we’re still going to investigate that even without him being President, because any time the Russians do anything with a US person, we care, and it’s very serious to us,” Page said.

“But if he becomes President, that totally changes the game because now he is the President of the United States,” she continued. “He’s going to immediately start receiving classified briefings. He’s going to be exposed to the most sensitive secrets imaginable. And if there is somebody on his team who wittingly or unwittingly is working with the Russians, that is super serious.”


Page was speaking to the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees as part of last year’s Republican-led investigation into the FBI and Justice Department’s handling of the investigations into Hillary Clinton and Trump and Russia.


The transcript of Page’s two-part interview in July 2018 was released publicly Tuesday by the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia...and has said he plans to continue to release more of the panel’s interviews conducted last year.


Page’s text messages exchanged with Strzok while the FBI officials had an affair cut to the heart of the Republican probe, in which GOP lawmakers argued that key officials tasked with investigating Clinton and Trump had displayed a clear political bias.


Page’s interview took place just after the raucous, public hearing with Strzok, in which he acknowledged his personal political biases but argued they did not affect his professional work.


Page made a similar argument in her closed-door interview with the panels, saying that her and Strzok’s professional decisions were unconnected to the personal text messages they exchanged.


In the interview, Page noted there was also an anti-Clinton bias at the FBI. She said that Strzok told her about senior FBI officials expressing a sentiment that “you have to get her.” But she said the comments weren’t instructions to investigators, and rather amounted to “smack talk.”


“That’s the point I keep trying to make, which is, like, we don’t like a lot of the people we investigate. In fact, we mostly don’t like the people we investigate,” Page said.."


Horowitz: Page and Strzok didn't make decisions on Clinton, Russia probes alone​

June 19, 2018 | 4:06 PM EDT
FBI Inspector General Michael Horowitz told Congress decisions on both investigations were made by a wide group.
 
Last edited:
That entire Biden family is a pretty clear example of this. But as yet, the legal institutions are doing a stellar job of sheltering/colluding with them.
Playing the victim... I think above all, when Trump decided to become a Republican and run for president as one, he instinctually knew that a significant portion of the Republican base has a psychological need to play the victim in life, to always believe that the world has been unfair to them and unfair to those that they support and there is no one earth that plays the victim better than Donald Trump.
 
So, now that we know a little more about the search. How long before Trump is delivered an arrest warrant and put in custody?

Counterpoint: I demand to see evidence of everything while I hope that elderly men shoot innocent people because I'm confused
 
That entire Biden family is a pretty clear example of this. But as yet, the legal institutions are doing a stellar job of sheltering/colluding with them.
Except you have only whack-job sources supporting your Biden related conclusions. Thank you for not posting links to your supporting sources.

More leaked audio: Bannon bragged that he used porn to …

https://www.motherjones.com › politics › 2022 › 07 › ...
Jul 26, 2022 · When the New York Post began reporting in mid-October 2020 on other material from Hunter Biden’s laptop, the tabloid explained that its journalists had learned of the hard …

The democrats didn't place the laptop "evidence" into the custody of Rudy's and Bannon's defense attorney,

and don't know — about Hunter Biden's alleged laptop

https://www.cbsnews.com › news › hunter-biden-laptop-new-york-post-story
Oct 15, 2020 · Rudy Giuliani, the president's personal lawyer, said his own attorney, Robert Costello, obtained the material from the owner of a computer repair shop in Wilmington, …

https://lawandcrime.com › high-profile › steve-bannons-new-lawyer-was-rudy-giulianis-backchannel-to-keep-michael-cohen-from-flipping-on-trump

Steve Bannon's New Lawyer Is Robert Costello | Law & Crime

Dec 11, 2020 Steve Bannon is seen in a November 2019 file photo. Outgoing President Donald Trump's indicted associate Steve Bannon appears to have a new lawyer who registered a federal court appearance on Friday: attorney Robert Costello, who was identified in former special counsel Robert Mueller's report as the "backchannel" between Rudy Giuliani to Keep Michael Cohen from Flipping on Trump..
...

https://www.emptywheel.net › 2022 › 07 › 08 › robert-costello-reveals-he-was-working-for-steve-bannon-a-year-before-he-was-publicly-hired

Robert Costello Reveals He Was Working for Steve Bannon a ... - emptywheel

Jul 8, 2022 After belatedly joining Steve Bannon's defense team as DOJ was collecting evidence about whether his claims matched the available evidence, Robert Costello is now asking to withdraw, citing a concern — one DOJ raised in a phone call on December 2, the same day he filed his notice of appearance — that he might have to serve as a witness.. The decision to withdraw just days before trial is ...
 
Last edited:
Cool, now look at (a) and (b), which feature "intent" quite vividly.
Correct. You can't get off on the excuse that you DID have criminal intent - it simply isn't required.

That's the difference between AND and OR.
 
That entire Biden family is a pretty clear example of this. But as yet, the legal institutions are doing a stellar job of sheltering/colluding with them

Guess only one side is guilty of not adhering to' '"innocent until proven guilty" A rush to judgment on Trump even in light of the search warrant inventory is wrong but heck Hunter's out-of-context emails......, OMG, OMG! The hypocrisy is nauseating but worse they don't even see it that's how far gone they are!
 
Correct. You can't get off on the excuse that you DID have criminal intent - it simply isn't required.

That's the difference between AND and OR.
Uh, no.
 
Except you have only whack-job sources supporting your Biden related conclusions. Thank you for not posting links to your supporting sources.

More leaked audio: Bannon bragged that he used porn to …

https://www.motherjones.com › politics › 2022 › 07 › ...
Jul 26, 2022 · When the New York Post began reporting in mid-October 2020 on other material from Hunter Biden’s laptop, the tabloid explained that its journalists had learned of the hard …

The democrats didn't place the laptop "evidence" into the custody of Rudy's and Bannon's defense attorney,

and don't know — about Hunter Biden's alleged laptop

https://www.cbsnews.com › news › hunter-biden-laptop-new-york-post-story
Oct 15, 2020 · Rudy Giuliani, the president's personal lawyer, said his own attorney, Robert Costello, obtained the material from the owner of a computer repair shop in Wilmington, …
I demand to know vwhat this says and I refuse to read it
 
Back
Top Bottom