It’s Over: Trump Will Be Indicted

[libertybele]

I know this is from the Daily Beast, but I agree with the opinion that Trump will be indicted. No, I do not agree that he should be indicted or that anything he did warrants being indicted, but this is the mindset of the leftists and this is their final effort to stop him from running in '24. 

It’s Over: Trump Will Be Indicted

I have finally seen enough. Donald Trump will be indicted by a federal grand jury.

You heard me right: I believe Trump will actually be indicted for a criminal offense. Even with all its redactions, the probable cause affidavit published today by the magistrate judge in Florida makes clear to me three essential points:

(1) Trump was in unauthorized possession of national defense information, namely properly marked classified documents.

(2) He was put on notice by the U.S. Government that he was not permitted to retain those documents at Mar-a-Lago.

(3) He continued to maintain possession of the documents (and allegedly undertook efforts to conceal them in different places throughout the property) up until the FBI finally executed a search warrant earlier this month.

That is the ball game, folks. Absent some unforeseen change in factual or legal circumstances, I believe there is little left for the Justice Department to do but decide whether to wait until after the midterms to formally seek the indictment from the grand jury.

The cruelest irony for Trump is that it never needed to be this way.

Put aside that in the chaos following his election loss Trump’s team never undertook the normal procedure for properly sorting through and archiving his presidential records in coordination with the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). Put aside that properly marked classified records were shipped to Mar-a-Lago and sat there for months until he began turning stuff over to NARA in late 2021.

If he had fully cooperated at that point, and returned all of the records to NARA last year, this likely never would have become a criminal matter. DOJ would have declined to take any action, notwithstanding the existence of the classified records, and it would have been a “no harm, no foul” situation. Just another minor story in the Trump saga of incompetence............

https://www.yahoo.com/news/over-trump-indicted-220111093.html

[mystery-ak]

If this is the case Trump better hire better lawyers than the 3 women that are on Fox all the time...last week Laura was even giving one of them advice on what to file with the courts..

[massadvj]

I agree it is fairly certain Trump will be indicted.  I see several ways it can play out:

1. Trump emerges as even more of a folk hero and martyr than he is now, and this firmly establishes him as the anti-establishment candidate. He runs again and wins.

2. There is a lot more to this than we now know, and once all of the facts are out, Trump is discredited in the minds of enough people that he stands no chance of ever running for office again.  He ends up getting convicted of at least one significant crime.

3. Trump accepts a pardon from Biden in exchange for a promise never to run for public office again.

Right now I'd put the probabilities of these outcomes as equal, with each outcome having a 1/3 chance of occurring.

[libertybele]

If this is the case Trump better hire better lawyers than the 3 women that are on Fox all the time...last week Laura was even giving one of them advice on what to file with the courts..

I believe it was @Right_in_Virginia that posted that Trump was getting advice from Fitton of Judicial Watch; he would be wise to listen.  I'm not familiar with the 3 women, but Trump needs a reliable team.  Who can he truly trust? 

I hope that those conservatives who have been thinking of running in '24 have already started to put their campaign together and already have a sizeable war chest.

I foresee that they will indict him it's just the timing that I'm not sure of; before or after the mid terms? If Trump indeed is planning on running he would be wise to announce it before they get a chance to actually indict him -- it will at least look like they're going after him because he's running.

[jmyrlefuller]

but this is the mindset of the leftists and this is their final effort to stop him from running in '24. 

If Donald Trump's heart is beating, he will run in '24, and '28, and '32, and '36. Even if he's in prison.

Whether he wins or not is immaterial now. He's hooked on the thrill, a swamp creature like the ones he promised to destroy.

And the Democrats know it, and know that there is an intransigent core that will never abandon him, permanently dividing their opposition and ensuring the rise of one-party rule.

[Hoodat]

For the umpteenth time, what law did Trump violate?  None of the three statutes listed in the warrant apply to a civilian's possession of documents.

[mystery-ak]

Trump's legal team includes Christina Bobb, a former host on the right-wing channel One America News Network; Lindsey Halligan, a Florida insurance lawyer; Alina Habba, who was once the general counsel for a parking-garage firm; and Evan Corcoran and James Trusty, both of whom are former federal prosecutors.

Not saying these lawyers are bad..but he needs to hire some heavy hitters...this bunch seems to lack experience....when you have Laura offering advice you know Trump is in trouble..

This is who Trump needs to hire..just my opinion


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JX6MsLPf9VA&ab_channel=TheArticleIIIProject

[Smokin Joe]

More poo at the wall...

Trump is like a kid who has been arrested 27 times and never convicted.

Then the arrest record is pointed to, but it is meaningless except to show that someone is, literally, out to get him, without anything more but misplaced prosecutorial zeal.

Not one of those pointing the finger at him could have withstood this level of scrutiny, and they are terrified they might receive it.

[libertybele]

For the umpteenth time, what law did Trump violate?  None of the three statutes listed in the warrant apply to a civilian's possession of documents.

Does it matter at this point if he broke any laws or not? They want to stop him from running period and they are going to use whatever means to stop him, whether it be legal or not.

More than anything, I am concerned for his safety and the safety of his family.

[libertybele]

More poo at the wall...

Trump is like a kid who has been arrested 27 times and never convicted.

Then the arrest record is pointed to, but it is meaningless except to show that someone is, literally, out to get him, without anything more but misplaced prosecutorial zeal.

Not one of those pointing the finger at him could have withstood this level of scrutiny, and they are terrified they might receive it.

The leftists are terrified of him; he is the voice of 80,000,000 people strong and growing.  They hired 86,000 weaponized IRS agents for a reason.

[libertybele]

Not saying these lawyers are bad..but he needs to hire some heavy hitters...this bunch seems to lack experience....when you have Laura offering advice you know Trump is in trouble..

This is who Trump needs to hire..just my opinion


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JX6MsLPf9VA&ab_channel=TheArticleIIIProject

IMO Trump is in trouble, not because he did anything illegal, but the left is drumming up as much as they can throw at him and as we witnessed during his impeachment the left won't necessarily go by the rule of law or follow protocol.

[Lando Lincoln]

We will witness a full-on assault on Trump in the next months. It will scarcely matter if anything is grounded in law or reality or truth. The only thing that matters is his destruction. If there is collateral damage to the Republicans in the meantime, all the better.

[mystery-ak]

 Alan Dershowitz says 'there is enough evidence' to indict Trump
by Ryan King, Breaking News Reporter
August 27, 2022 12:14 PM

Attorney Alan Dershowitz, who has previously defended former President Donald Trump in public and in the congressional chambers, argued there is enough evidence to indict the former president.

While discussing revelations from the heavily redacted affidavit released Friday, Dershowitz argued that despite there being enough evidence, prosecutors won't charge Trump due to precedents he dubbed the "Nixon-Clinton standards."

"There is enough evidence here to indict Trump. But Trump will not be indicted, in my view, because the evidence doesn’t pass what I call the Nixon-Clinton standards," Dershowitz said during a segment on Hannity.

"The Nixon standard is: The case has to be so overwhelmingly strong that even Republicans support it," he said. "And the Clinton standard is: Why is this case more serious than Clinton’s case, where there wasn’t a criminal prosecution?"

Dershowitz cautioned that his assessment could change if redacted portions of the affidavit were revealed to the public, but he underscored that there "should not be an indictment based on what we've seen up to now."

Drawing contrast with many conservatives, including Trump, Dershowitz also defended Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart's approval of the search warrant that led to the raid in August, arguing that "every judge would have made the same ruling."

However, he argued that Attorney General Merrick Garland should never have sought the warrant in the first place, contending that the affidavit indicated "there was no urgency."

"If they wanted a search warrant, if it was so urgent, they could have gotten it five months ago. And even when they got the search warrant, they waited two days. There was no justification for a search warrant. So if you want to talk about who's to blame here, it's not Reinhardt, it's the attorney general of the United States — he should never have sought a search warrant," Dershowitz said.

more
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/justice/watch-dershowitz-trump-evidence-indict-fbi-raid-affidavit

[libertybele]

Alan Dershowitz says 'there is enough evidence' to indict Trump
by Ryan King, Breaking News Reporter
August 27, 2022 12:14 PM

Attorney Alan Dershowitz, who has previously defended former President Donald Trump in public and in the congressional chambers, argued there is enough evidence to indict the former president.

While discussing revelations from the heavily redacted affidavit released Friday, Dershowitz argued that despite there being enough evidence, prosecutors won't charge Trump due to precedents he dubbed the "Nixon-Clinton standards."

"There is enough evidence here to indict Trump. But Trump will not be indicted, in my view, because the evidence doesn’t pass what I call the Nixon-Clinton standards," Dershowitz said during a segment on Hannity.

"The Nixon standard is: The case has to be so overwhelmingly strong that even Republicans support it," he said. "And the Clinton standard is: Why is this case more serious than Clinton’s case, where there wasn’t a criminal prosecution?"

Dershowitz cautioned that his assessment could change if redacted portions of the affidavit were revealed to the public, but he underscored that there "should not be an indictment based on what we've seen up to now."

Drawing contrast with many conservatives, including Trump, Dershowitz also defended Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart's approval of the search warrant that led to the raid in August, arguing that "every judge would have made the same ruling."

However, he argued that Attorney General Merrick Garland should never have sought the warrant in the first place, contending that the affidavit indicated "there was no urgency."

"If they wanted a search warrant, if it was so urgent, they could have gotten it five months ago. And even when they got the search warrant, they waited two days. There was no justification for a search warrant. So if you want to talk about who's to blame here, it's not Reinhardt, it's the attorney general of the United States — he should never have sought a search warrant," Dershowitz said.

more
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/justice/watch-dershowitz-trump-evidence-indict-fbi-raid-affidavit

When Dershowitz gives his legal opinion I take notice.  We'll see what happens ..."he underscored that there "should not be an indictment based on what we've seen up to now."

I think we all know that this is far from over.

[libertybele]

We will witness a full-on assault on Trump in the next months. It will scarcely matter if anything is grounded in law or reality or truth. The only thing that matters is his destruction. If there is collateral damage to the Republicans in the meantime, all the better.

[Lando Lincoln]

The signs of the proverbial kitchen sink being tossed at Mr. Trump are appearing elsewhere. Some are testing the waters of laying Covid vaccine side effects at his feet. He will have fires popping up everywhere.

[mystery-ak]

The signs of the proverbial kitchen sink being tossed at Mr. Trump are appearing elsewhere. Some are testing the waters of laying Covid vaccine side effects at his feet. He will have fires popping up everywhere.

Yes..they just started that line of attack the other day...

[Right_in_Virginia]

I believe it was @Right_in_Virginia that posted that Trump was getting advice from Fitton of Judicial Watch; he would be wise to listen.  I'm not familiar with the 3 women, but Trump needs a reliable team. 

Everything about this is media driven  ---- including the stated reasons for the search warrant @libertybele  Under these circumstances, you damn well need a cadre of people whose job it has been to pay attention to this media and rebut them.

Tom Fitton is one of these people. He's not giving legal advice, he's filling in gaps, patterns and leaks to the media the attorneys will have missed --- and he's bringing receipts.

Smart move.

[Fishrrman]

Lando predicts (succinctly):
"We will witness a full-on assault on Trump in the next months. It will scarcely matter if anything is grounded in law or reality or truth. The only thing that matters is his destruction."

The greater the assault, the stronger the will among his constituents to resist.

"There is a crime here that goes beyond denunciation. There is a sorrow here that weeping cannot symbolize. There is a failure here that topples all our success...
...In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage."
(J. Steinbeck)

[Bigun]

You can indict  a ham sandwich and likely get a conviction in a DC court. But if any of that stands after appeals are exhausted this once great republic is truly DEAD!

My prediction is that the left is going to live to regret all this more than they imagine.  MAGA

[libertybele]

URGENT TRUMP RAID UPDATE Judicial Watch

Judicial Watch Victory: FBI Raid Affidavit Released

This is a good start, but the fight isn’t over.

The Department of Justice released its highly redacted affidavit in response to our court request to unseal the warrant materials used in the unprecedented raid on the home of former President Trump

Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart had granted our motion and ordered that “before noon Eastern time on Friday, August 26, 2022, the Government shall file in the public docket a version of the Affidavit containing the redactions proposed.”

In a remarkable and historic victory for transparency, we forced the release of the infamous and heavily redacted FBI raid affidavit.

Now we know why the Biden Justice Department did not want to release this material, as it exposes how there was significant evidence of President Trump’s cooperation, a major legal dispute about the legal status of the records believed to be in Trump’s possession, and that the FBI abusively raided his home anyway.

The Biden Justice Department’s dishonest redactions of the reasons for its redactions makes a mockery of the American people’s right to know the entire story about this raid on Trump’s home, which was a wild abuse of power by the Biden administration.

This legal battle for accountability is just getting started.

We have been in the forefront in the court battle for transparency regarding the abusive FBI raid. Here is the chronology of our efforts.

On August 9, we filed its motion asking the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida to unseal as soon as possible the search warrant materials used by the FBI to raid President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home in Florida (U.S. v. Sealed Search Warrant (Case No. 9:22-mj-08332)).

On August 11, the DOJ filed a motion offering to unseal certain warrant materials.

On August 12, we filed President Trump’s public statement with the court, in which he made it clear that he would not oppose the release of documents related to the August 8, 2022, raid. Later that day, the DOJ made a partial release of the Trump raid warrant materials.

Initially, the Albany Times Union and the New York Times joined us in filing for the unsealing of the warrant by filing an amicus letter and motion respectively. Other interests later joined in the effort.

The Justice Department was ordered by Magistrate Reinhart to respond by August 15 to our Motion to Unseal the warrant and supporting materials behind the FBI raid. In its filing, the Justice Department alleged that releasing the affidavit would “cause significant and irreparable damage” to its ongoing criminal investigation.

The court also ordered the release of other documents concerning the warrant.

On August 17, we submitted our reply to the DOJ’s effort to keep under seal the affidavit used to justify the controversial raid on the home of former President Trump. We cited former President Trump’s support for the release of the affidavit.

After last week’s hearing in West Palm Beach, FL, the court issued an order that stated:

As I ruled from the bench at the conclusion of the hearing, I find that on the present record the Government has not met its burden of showing that the entire affidavit should remain sealed. It is ORDERED that by noon EST on Thursday, August 25, 2022, the Government shall file under seal its proposed redactions along with a legal memorandum setting forth the justification for the proposed redactions.

Four additional filings were made public on August 22.

Right now, our legal team is considering the next steps for any challenges to the over-redactions of the new documents. Watch this space for future updates!

 

Judicial Watch Sues National Archives for Hiding Records on Trump Raid

The Biden administration’s raid on President Trump’s home is an outrageous, reckless and unprecedented abuse of power. And the American people have an urgent right to know how the administration manufactured the records dispute used as a pretext for the raid.

So we filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) for records regarding its communication with the Department of Justice (DOJ) about President Trump’s presidential records (Judicial Watch v National Archives and Records Administration (No. 1:22-cv-02535).

In February 2022, the National Archives reportedly asked the Justice Department to investigate former President Donald Trump’s handling of records from his presidency. This investigation eventually led to the unprecedented raid on the former president’s home.

We sued after NARA failed to respond adequately to our February 2022 FOIA request for:

    All records regarding the referral from NARA to the Department of Justice regarding the records management procedures of former President Donald Trump (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/national-archives-asks-doj-investigate-trumps-handling-white/story?id=82781128 ). This request includes all related records of communication between any official or employee of NARA and any official or employee of the Department of Justice and/or any other branch, department, agency, or office of the federal government.
    All records regarding the retrieval of records from President Trump or any individual or entity acting on his behalf by the National Archives and Records Administration. This request includes related records of communication between any official or employee of NARA and President Trump and/or any individual or entity acting on his behalf

The Biden administration’s unlawful secrecy on its political raid of Trump’s home speaks volume

https://www.judicialwatch.org/urgent-trump-raid-update/

[Hoodat]

Somewhere around p.21 of the affidavit, the following false claim is offered by the redacted FBI agent:

"I do not believe that any spaces within the premises have been authorized for the storage of classified information."

This statement is patently false.  In other words, this search warrant was secured using a false affidavit.  Someone should be disbarred over this.

[Bigun]

Somewhere around p.21 of the affidavit, the following false claim is offered by the redacted FBI agent:

"I do not believe that any spaces within the premises have been authorized for the storage of classified information."

This statement is patently false.  In other words, this search warrant was secured using a false affidavit.  Someone should be disbarred over this.

Several someones! Including a magistrate who would sign off on such an overly broad warrant for anyone much less the most recent ex-president!

[Hoodat]

[roamer_1]

THAT'S RIGHT.