• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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!

Where is an actual pdf copy of Trump's federal indictment where selected portions can be selected and copied?

ttwtt78640 said:
The indictment indicated that past actions of ‘team Hillary’ were known to have been on Trump’s mind. Whether (or not) that makes it relevant to “the case at issue” remains to be seen.
Click to expand...
Since Hillary Clinton has not been charged or convicted of any crime in reference to this it would likely be ruled not admissible.
 
ClaraD said:
Since Hillary Clinton has not been charged or convicted of any crime in reference to this it would likely be ruled not admissible.
Click to expand...

That’s precisely why this ‘state of mind’ reference may be admissible. As I said, the indictment specifically mentioned it making it (potentially) relevant to this case. Whether or not a juror (or two) might see that as ‘reasonable doubt’ of unlawful intent is anyone’s guess.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That’s precisely why this ‘state of mind’ reference may be admissible. As I said, the indictment specifically mentioned it making it (potentially) relevant to this case. Whether or not a juror (or two) might see that as ‘reasonable doubt’ of unlawful intent is anyone’s guess.
Click to expand...
Nope...he is alleging a criminal act where no one has been accused of a criminal act. It's not admissible. Not only that she didn't tell anyone to delete anything...


FBI Director James Comey said in a July 2016 statement that the FBI investigation "found no evidence that any of the additional work-related emails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them."

Comey added in a later congressional hearing that the FBI learned no one on Clinton’s staff specifically asked the employee to delete the emails following the New York Times story and subpoena. Rather, the employee made that decision on his own.

Clinton told the FBI that she did was not involved in deciding whether individual emails should be sent to State Department, nor "did she instruct anyone to delete her emails to avoid complying with FOIA, State or FBI requests for information."
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Maybe, but my point was Hilary wasn’t charged at all for having her ‘staff’ do the culling (selective deleting/destroying) of her ‘private’ server’s and multiple phone’s content while it was under subpoena.
Click to expand...
Trump had four long years and still didn't do shit about Clinton or Obama. "Drain the swamp" and "I will lock you up" were just soundbites to get your vote. What a piece of shit huh?
 
ClaraD said:
Nope...he is alleging a criminal act where no one has been accused of a criminal act. It's not admissible. Not only that she didn't tell anyone to delete anything...


FBI Director James Comey said in a July 2016 statement that the FBI investigation "found no evidence that any of the additional work-related emails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them."

Comey added in a later congressional hearing that the FBI learned no one on Clinton’s staff specifically asked the employee to delete the emails following the New York Times story and subpoena. Rather, the employee made that decision on his own.
Click to expand...

The lawyers doing the sorting for Secretary Clinton in 2014…
Click to expand...

Trying to assert that lawyers just spontaneously decided to do (charity?) work for Hillary is ridiculous.

ClaraD said:
Clinton told the FBI that she did was not involved in deciding whether individual emails should be sent to State Department, nor "did she instruct anyone to delete her emails to avoid complying with FOIA, State or FBI requests for information."
Click to expand...
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Trying to assert that lawyers just spontaneously decided to do (charity?) work for Hillary is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Comey determined that it was true and not only that she turned over relevant emails....they deleted crap that was older than what was requested or not relevant to government work....such as hey friend what are you going to have for lunch? Care to grab me something...here come get my card to pay for it...
 
ClaraD said:
If they read through the first page the most damning part is this

The classified documents TRUMP stored in his boxes included information regarding defense and weapons capabilities of both the United States and foreign countries; United States nuclear programs; potential vulnerabilities of the United States and its allies to military attack; and plans for possible retaliation in response to a foreign attack. The unauthorized disclosure of these classified documents could put at risk the national security of the United States, foreign relations, the safety of the United States military, and human sources and the continued viability of sensitive intelligence collection methods.
Click to expand...
He is entitled to have that information. It comes with the job. NARA isn't entitled to his personal records.
 
ClaraD said:
the job as a civilian? in 2021, who was president?
Click to expand...
He is entitled to retain his personal files after he serves. This issue has already been settled in court by William Jefferson Clinton
 
trouble13 said:
He is entitled to retain his personal files after he serves. This issue has already been settled in court by William Jefferson Clinton
Click to expand...
again...no documents on troop movements, NDI, top secret, weapons systems, etc...are his personal files....no, it hasn't...you clearly have not read the decision regarding Clinton....tapes regarding his BIOGRAPHY are his personal files...not documents that his chief of staff or 5 star general wrote on our military systems...
 
ClaraD said:
again...no documents on troop movements, NDI, top secret, weapons systems, etc...are his personal files....no, it hasn't...you clearly have not read the decision regarding Clinton....tapes regarding his BIOGRAPHY are his personal files...not documents that his chief of staff or 5 star general wrote on our military systems...
Click to expand...
Do you really think that was all that was on those tapes and they did not contain classified information on them...
 
trouble13 said:
Do you really think that was all that was on those tapes and they did not contain classified information on them...
Click to expand...
Since when is our nuclear weapons capabilities and military vunerabilites not top secret information? psst he is on tape admitting that it is top secret and that he isn't allowed to let other people see them...while he shows them to them.
 
trouble13 said:
Do you really think that was all that was on those tapes and they did not contain classified information on them...
Click to expand...

The tapes were conversations and interviews between Clinton and a historian friend of his, so he'd have a reference when later writing his memoirs.

Why would there be any classified information on them?
 
ClaraD said:
Since when is our nuclear weapons capabilities and military vunerabilites not top secret information? psst he is on tape admitting that it is top secret and that he isn't allowed to let other people see them...while he shows them to them.
Click to expand...
I think you're confused. I was referring to Clinton's recordings
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Point #55 might prove to be tricky, since it specifically mentions Trump’s knowledge of the ‘Hillary precedent’ which allowed (or at least was said to have allowed) her to avoid indictment. While it was likely included to indicate Trump’s ‘willful intent’ to seek staff ‘conspirators’, it also opens the can of worms that past FBI/DOJ investigators (intentionally?) ignored Hillary’s authorization of ‘staff’ to see and even (potentially) delete ’official government’ documents under subpoena. By making that ‘theory’ part of the indictment, it may make the ’Hillary precedent’ useful as a ‘team Trump‘ defense argument.
Click to expand...
A defense based on an inaccurate belief about Hillary Clinton's case isn't going to go over well, no.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Really?

Click to expand...

Yes really. Prove to me just one thing she said in that clip that isn’t true. Meanwhile there’s a reason why Trump’s lawyers were compelled to give testimony and turn over their notes to Special Counsel under the crime/fraud exception rule. Trump expects and pushes people working with or under him to commit illicit and/or unethical acts to protect him. But he will happily throw any of them under the bus in order to save his own hide. That’s likely the reason the lawyers representing him in the Mar a Lago documents case quit the minute he was indicted. Because they didn’t want to have to endure anymore of the problems representing him brings.
 
trouble13 said:
I think you're confused. I was referring to Clinton's recordings
Click to expand...
Think that as per usual you’re the one who is confused. Her case revolved around emails not recordings.
 
trouble13 said:
He is entitled to retain his personal files after he serves. This issue has already been settled in court by William Jefferson Clinton
Click to expand...
No he is not entitled (which is a very apt term to use with Trump) to those filed or documents. The Presidential Records Act couldn’t be clearer on that.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The indictment indicated that past actions of ‘team Hillary’ were known to have been on Trump’s mind. Whether (or not) that makes it relevant to “the case at issue” remains to be seen.
Click to expand...
Just because something was on Trump's mind doesn't make it true, "the big lie" being a case in point, nor is it an excuse to not comply with a lawful subpoena, or obstructing justice by surreptitiously attempting to hide the documents being sought by that subpoena. What Trump said to his lawyers about Hillary's emails was a clear insight into the inner workings of his criminal mind.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Exactly, yet she clearly admitted to requesting (ordering?) it to be done. This is precisely the ‘double standard’ that defensive ‘team Trump’ will likely assert had been used.
Click to expand...
No she did not do anything of the sort. After they had completed the culling process her IT assistant was to set the system file clearing system to delete the rest 30 days afterwards. Why would anyone make such a setting to delete something after 30 days if the intention was to hide them because they could be incriminating? That makes no sense. Nope, you would get rid of those right away. Not to mention the software used to make those deletions, Bleach Bit, is a freeware app. You don't even have to pay anything for it. Do you really think the FBI wouldn't be able to recover emails and data from such an unsophisticated app? No, that's an utterly ridiculous notion. If you really need to hide something from the government that could land your ass in jail who in their right mind would use such a cheap ass program?
 
Last edited:
trouble13 said:
I think you're confused. I was referring to Clinton's recordings
Click to expand...
Why are you even talking about Clinton on a thread about the indictment of Donald J Trump? This thread is about him, so it is you who is confused. If you want to talk about something else, make another thread....this one is about the indictment on 37 federal crimes of Donald J Trump.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The indictment indicated that past actions of ‘team Hillary’ were known to have been on Trump’s mind. Whether (or not) that makes it relevant to “the case at issue” remains to be seen.
Click to expand...
:ROFLMAO::LOL::D Relevant??? It's not even real. They're entirely imaginary. Her case and his are miles apart under federal law.
 
Atomic Kid said:
Think that as per usual you’re the one who is confused. Her case revolved around emails not recordings.
Click to expand...
Bill not Hilliary. Hillary was never officially the President. She only thought she was.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom