The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Federal authorities unseal an indictment containing charges against Donald Trump (https://www.npr.org/live-updates/trump-indictment-documents-grand-jury)

The indictment unsealed early Friday afternoon shows that a grand jury indicted Trump on 37 counts, including 31 counts of willful retention of national defense information and making false statements.

Trump's longtime aide Walt Nauta faces six charges, which are listed in the same document.

You can read the full document here (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.3.0.pdf) and read a summary of the counts below:

- Willful retention of national defense information applies to Trump only for allegedly storing 31 such documents at Mar-a-Lago
- Conspiracy to obstruct justice, alleging that Trump and Nauta, along with others, conspired to keep those documents from the grand jury
- Withholding a document or a record, accusing Trump and Nauta of misleading one of their attorneys by moving boxes of classified documents so the attorney could not find or introduce them to the grand jury
- Corruptly concealing a document or record pertains the defendants' attempts to hide the boxes of classified documents from the attorney for that same purpose
- Concealing a document in a federal investigation, accusing the defendants of hiding from the FBI Trump's continued possession of those documents at Mar-a-Lago and causing a false certificate to be submitted to the FBI
- Scheme to conceal pertains to the defendants allegedly hiding Trump's continued possession of those materials from the FBI and the grand jury
- One count of false statements and representations concerns statements that Trump caused another one of his attorneys to make to the FBI and grand jury in early June regarding the results of the search at Mar-a-Lago
- Another count of false statements and representations accuses Nauta of giving false answers during a voluntary interview with the FBI in late May

According to the indictment, each one of those charges carries a maximum fine of $250,000, with maximum prison sentences between 5 and 20 years.

---

Of note:  According to the indictment, there is an audio recording in which “Trump also said ‘as president I could have declassified it,’ and ‘Now I can’t, you know, but this is still a secret.’”  This is "I know I'm committing a crime right now" on tape.  I don't expect this to pierce the MAGA veil, but it will make the Trump supporters' jobs that much more laughable.

It doesn't look good for him but it wouldn't be the first time things were fabricated against him. As well ... all the smoking guns to bring down Matt Gaetz  and or Hilliary Clinton kind of went by the wayside. I'll believe any politician on a national level goes down once it actually happens.

Clinton was never indicted....I don't think Gaetz was either.

This is different.  They are bringing concrete charges that they believe they have evidence to prosecute.


I think this might finally be the end of the road.  And unlike the other indictment, that (while illegal) speaks to money laundering and character issues....this is national security.  This one is bad.

It's still not the worst one.  Jan 6th and trying to overthrow the election is the worst.  But this is pretty bad.

No, I get that. I just think there are too many favors and secrets owed for it to get too far.

To borrow a line from the 2016 Republican Nominating Convention: "Lock Him Up"

I'm beginning to think that Trump is actually going to go to prison.

I didn't think it WOULD happen before.  And even though I don't like the guy, I questioned whether it SHOULD happen, even if he was found guilty.  In general, it's a bad look to put your presidents in the slammer.

But I also kind of assumed there'd be a plea and he'd naturally go away on his own, like Nixon.  If that doesn't happen, I don't see what else you do except lock him up.  You can't really have leniency on someone when they're calling the whole thing a witch hunt the whole time and refusing any modicum of responsibility for any wrongdoing.  There is no contrition.  And at that point, him being free is more dangerous to America than him being behind bars.  ...to Democracy.  ...to the GOP.  ...to the general public safety.

Also, you have to give yourself the best chance of defending yourself and Trump just isn't doing that.  You can't go on TV and just talk freely about your crimes, with such excuses as "my gold shirts were in there", "I was busy", etc.  He's directly implicating himself.  This is basic lawyer stuff.  I work at a law firm that does small potatoes things and the very first thing we tell clients is not to talk.  You can't talk your way out of stuff.

Allen Dershowitz didn’t make it sound too promising and he’s backed Trump all the way .

When you're dealing with a jury, anything can happen.  There are people that would find him not guilty no matter the evidence (and there are people who would find him guilty, no matter the lack of evidence).  If one of these is on the jury, that's a problem and something they will have to weed out.

My concern is not all trials are jury trials.  The defendant actually has to ask for a jury trial otherwise it is decided by the judge, and Eileen Cannon could fall in the category of people who will find him not guilty no matter the evidence. 

You are also dealing with a judge photographed in a MAGA hat that has refused to recuse herself. If you think it makes it to a jury you are completely delusional.

Here's the audio of Trump bragging about the crime he is fully aware he is committing as he commits it:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/26/politics/trump-classified-documents-audio/index.html

Gonna be pretty tough to use the standard "He was joking" defenses normally deployed for Trump's other obviously criminal statements.

^ I listened to the clip last night.  I think he's going to prison.

It's such an open and shut case.  It's airtight.  It's serious.  There's no way around it.

Who wants to bet that he still runs for president from jail? I'm betting he would or does.

in a vacuum i agree.

but all it takes is one trumper jury member to slip past the voir dire process and you have a mistrial

^ Yes, but two things:

1) The kind of person who is so in the tank for Trump that they absolutely refuse to hear his case honestly almost certainly wears that on their sleeve on social media or in other parts of their life.  It would be hard to slip past the process, I think.

2) A mistrial, from what I understand from the legal experts in this case, just means to "run it back".  The evidence is so simple and clear that you just run the trial again until you get a verdict.

Trump seems to just try to delay this, hoping he will be president and drop the case entirely / pardon himself or whatever other scheme he has cooked up.

(Also I think it's likely that he leaked his own tape.)

Looks like Newsmax is going with the "Trump was lying about what he was showing" defense:

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1673771233182187521

That strategy is not going to be very stable after the FBI interviews the other people in the room and asks them what Trump was showing them.

Way to cut up a clip to make an extreme point because you have  none. I'm positive that 5 seconds clearly means that's the argument they are making to defend him. Hahaha

Trump is saying that himself.  His defense is that he was lying to that person in the room and that he wasn't actually handling classified documents.  And he's full of shit, obviously.  This won't matter, because he won't take the stand to say that, so it will only be the testimony of those in the room and the tape.

I can't believe the GOP is supporting this guy.  They can't wait to get their asses kicked in the general.  Biden is very beatable and they're going to choose a felon instead.  What a bunch of bozos.

^^^ I wasn't referring to Trump but Newsmax. I haven't seen that as their go-to for defense. In fact I haven't really seen anyone have an actual defense. Trump throws dumb comments out all the time (oddly that's what the clip seems to be saying to me)  Best anyone in his defense can say is  "what about so and so?". I've asked a few if they let their kids get away with stuff when they say that about their siblings ... hahaha.

I posted a clip of them literally using that as a defense and your response was that it was just a short clip.  So, fine: provide the extra context that you think is missing, instead of complaining that I'm unfairly citing their exact words.

Trump's own defense, directly from his own mouth (WARNING: CLIP IS FROM MSNBC):

https://twitter.com/allinwithchris/status/1673853583488434176

The best part is where Trump says that he "hasn't seen" the recording seconds before he mentions that you can hear papers rustling in the recording.  Maybe he means that it is literally impossible for one to "see" an audio recording, as "seeing" is done with eyes but hearing is done with ears?  (Guess I'm ready for my job at Newsmax!)

You posted a clip of a woman saying something about who knows even if you can trust that what Trump said was true as in he always embellishes and stretches the truth to brag of his accomplishments. It doesn't insinuate or prove Newsmax as a a whole is using this as his innocence. You see whatever you want to see.

Dude, she is a Newsmax employee on Newsmax air time.
I doubt you afford the same generous nuance to any employee of MSNBC offering their opinion.