Trump Indicted in Docs Probe

[Moksha]

Or … Floridated? : )

We would need to consult Res Ipsa about adding fluoride to the justice system.

[huckelberry]

On the news its, Trump, Trump, Trump,Trump, Trump, Trump,Trump, Trump, Trump,Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump,Trump, Trump, Trump,Trump, Trump, Trump,Trump, Trump, Trump,

You know like 24/7, Trump, Trump, Trump,Trump, Trump, Trump,

This kind of publicity could cost a couple of fortunes if sought as political ads. In a way I think the whole reason for the document collection was for public attention (as well as stroking his ego). He of course hopes enough of the attention will turn sympathetic. His delusions of grandiosity might encourage that idea. I am not sure if there may not be enough people in love with his delusions to make his gamble(legal risk for attention) at least plausible.

Trump, Trump, Trump,Trump, Trump, Trump,Trump, Trump, Trump,Trump, Trump, Trump,

What are the odds a Florida jury will decline to convict?

[Res Ipsa]

By the way, the Judge that ruled twice in Trump's favor, Aileen Cannon, was assigned the case. Seems like justice will be Floridaized.

Judge Cannon on the left

Sorry, oh flightless one. That’s a hoax.

[Moksha]

Sorry, oh flightless one. That’s a hoax.

You can sort of tell that by the hair color and date, but the sentiment seems genuine. Most pundits think she will either recuse herself or be removed.

[Vēritās]

So an argument is being made by FOX News' Jesse Watters and quite a few legal folks on the Right that Trump has already been exonerated based on the "Clinton sock drawer" lawsuit which he won. I'd love to get Res Ipsa's take on this issue, as people are literally claiming that the ruling by Judge Jackson in that lawsuit says Presidents and only Presidents get to determine what's personal records and what's Presidential records.

Check this out for example: https://Twitter.com/shipwreckedcrew/sta ... 50273?s=20

One guy says, "Except it's also 100% true, on accordance with settled case law, Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Nat'l Archives & Records Admin - 2009."

"President can call anything he wants 'Personal Records' and they become such ipso facto,"

[Jersey Girl]

So an argument is being made by FOX News' Jesse Watters and quite a few legal folks on the Right that Trump has already been exonerated based on the "Clinton sock drawer" lawsuit which he won. I'd love to get Res Ipsa's take on this issue, as people are literally claiming that the ruling by Judge Jackson in that lawsuit says Presidents and only Presidents get to determine what's personal records and what's Presidential records.

Check this out for example: https://Twitter.com/shipwreckedcrew/sta ... 50273?s=20

One guy says, "Except it's also 100% true, on accordance with settled case law, Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Nat'l Archives & Records Admin - 2009."

"President can call anything he wants 'Personal Records' and they become such ipso facto,"

Yeah except for the fact that they have him recorded admitting that the documents were declassified, that he couldn't declassify them now, that they were secret and telling someone to look at them, also talking about how the war plans make his class which I assume is meant to settle a score with Gen. Milley or some other brass.

In other words, they have him speaking words out of his own mouth admitting he knows it's wrong and still has them. If they were declassified we wouldn't be talking about this. I don't see how anyone could have highly classified material and claim it was personal records.

They also have him on record as intentionally hiding them from various persons including his attorney, National Archives, and I guess ultimately the FBI. There's no reason to hide personal records unless they are contraband.

If that ruling is applicable then why doesn't Trump know it?

Sorry you got me instead of RI. Pretend you never laid eyes on this post. Forget I exist.

[Moksha]

Kari Lake has vowed to turn violent over this indictment. Do we know if Ajax has made any vows?

[Doctor Steuss]

I read the entire indictment last night.

I get that Trump is by far the least intelligent person to be discussed in the document, with Nauta being the second least intelligent (refused to roll on his boss and is now the proud winner of a Jack Smith #FAFO prize), but Trump Attorney 3--who certified and signed off on a search that she neither conducted nor oversaw--come on down! You didn't win but you're on the podium.

I just watched Reality on HBO Max last night. I sure hope everyone involved gets at least as much prison time as the Trump administration gave that poor woman for leaking a single document.

And is it too much to hope they get held on no bail while awaiting trial like she did?

I'm wondering what kind of professional relationship Attorneys 2 & 3 had, where Attorney 2 would feel so comfortable asking something like that.

"Hey, I'm not going to sign this, because I'm pretty sure Trump's up to some crap, and I don't want to be caught up in it. You mind signing this?"

[Bond]

I'm wondering what kind of professional relationship Attorneys 2 & 3 had, where Attorney 2 would feel so comfortable asking something like that.

"Hey, I'm not going to sign this, because I'm pretty sure Trump's up to some crap, and I don't want to be caught up in it. You mind signing this?"

Lawyer 3 is Christina Bobb. I assume she's going to roll on Attorney #2, Evan Corcoran, who told her to sign the document despite her not having a grasp on the situation. Boris Epshteyn, another Trump lawyer, connected her with Corcoran *the night before* she signed the paper.

https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump ... 6b6011fc9e

Bobb is a former OAN anchor and Marine who believes the 2020 election was stolen. Clearly a Trump fawning human shield selected to take the bullet. We'll see if she actually takes the bullet. I suspect she rolls over.

[Moksha]

Here is the audio version of the indictment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnMOzKtRs5c