"That is an admission to the charge."

[kadee79]

In his own words.  In a speech he gave shortly after having been arrested/arraigned on Tue.!

MSNBC legal analyst Andrew Weissmann said former President Donald Trump admitted to one of the federal charges he is facing just hours after being arraigned.

On Tuesday, Trump pleaded not guilty to 37 counts stemming from his retention of government documents after he left office. The Department of Justice says some of those documents were classified and that he repeatedly obstructed the government’s efforts to retrieve them.

Hours later, Trump delivered a speech from his golf resort in Bedminster, New Jersey, where he claimed he had “every right under the Presidential Records Act” to take the documents. He also said he was not aware of everything that was in the boxes of materials he took because he did not have enough time to sort through them.

Appearing on The Last Word, Weissmann, a former assistant U.S. attorney and former FBI general counsel who later joined Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team investigating Trump, said the former president admitted to a crime.

“That was written in the teleprompter,” host Lawrence O’Donnell said about Trump’s speech. “His lawyers probably knew that he was going to be saying this tonight. He didn’t just, you know, wing it. That was a considered choice.”

Weissmann said Trump’s speech amounted to a confession.

www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/former-fbi-general-counsel-says-trump-admitted-to-a-crime-during-tuesday-night-speech-that-is-an-admission-to-that-charge/ar-AA1cw9yF?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=f7295f131cea4920ec63c7ed1ca4fdbd&ei=53

[billisonboard]

Counts 1-31 are "Willful Retention of National Defense Records" charges, one charge for each of 31 specific documents. Did he admit to willful retention of those specific documents or documents in general while indicating he was not aware of all documents?

[djAdvocate]

um....no.  he has NO right to retain classified information under the PRA.

this has already been established.  

but at least we know where this stupid idea is coming from, now.  it is from Tom Fitton.

Fitton is the president of Judicial Watch.  i admire about 5% of what they do.  mostly they are a bunch of lunatics.  PBP was a big fan.  

NOTE: Fitton has NO legal experience or education.  he is an English major.  he is a government employee, appointed by Trump.  his term expires in 2025.  he is definitely a loon, in terms of his views on a whole slew of issues.  it is also pretty clear that he aligns nearly perfectly with Trump on those issues, and/or vice versa.

[djAdvocate]

abovethelaw.com/2023/06/trump-and-his-minions-continue-to-lie-about-the-clinton-socks-case/

this is worth the read, to get your head around this subject.

Tom Fitton WRONGLY reads the verdict from a 2012 case, or intentionally leaves out portions that do not suit his position.  the "Socks Case" does NOT state that the president can declare all presidential materials "personal".  in fact, it states quite clearly that any declaration of ANY kind has to be made BEFORE THE PRESIDENT LEAVES OFFICE:

"Fitton and Trump have strangely ignored the parts where the Judge Jackson said that the decision to designate an item as personal must be “made during, and not after, the presidency.” This is consonant with the plain language of the PRA which specifies that documents “shall, to the extent practicable, be categorized as Presidential records or personal records upon their creation or receipt and be filed separately,” i.e. not years after the fact when the outgoing executive decides it would be cool to keep information on Israel’s nuclear program and/or plans for a military invasion of Iran."

in other words, Trump (and every other president and VP) should make these decisions and/or separations BEFORE they leave office.  how difficult is it to put personal records in one box and presidential records in another?  not too difficult- but apparently too difficult for most presidents and VP's.  which is why the National Archives gave Trump FOURTEEN MONTHS to sort his shit out before they declared him uncooperative.  

but now we can see why he was uncooperative.  because Fitton told him to.

again....Fitton is not a lawyer.  he is just some dude who thinks he knows the law.  but apparently he can't be bothered to read through even the CASE HE IS CITING to see where Trump actually falls in that case (namely, on the wrong side of it).

NOTE: the documents in the socks case were NOT declared presidential records.  so the PRA could not be used to recover them.  ditto for all PERSONAL material.  so, Trump and Fitton are WRONGLY conflating personal and presidential material.  that is not going to hold up in court.

[djAdvocate]

i recommend reading that article.  this is also from the SOCKS case:


President Trump is welcome, under the SOCK DRAWER CASE, to introduce evidence that he designated any of these records as personal, rather than Presidential, at the time they were created or handed to him. Keep in mind, though, that the standard for that is rather high; the records must be “of a purely private or nonpublic character which do not relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President.”


it is so great that this power and authority question has already been adjudicated.  
i expect this case to be cited extensively by the defense.
and i expect them to get it rammed down their throats.

[djAdvocate]

i would love, FOR ONCE, if someone would ask Trump this question when he asserts something ridiculous:

"who told you that/how did you find that out"?

i mean, he would probably say "well isn't it just obvious?"
to which you could reply- no, it is not at all obvious, and repeat the question.

for ONCE i would like him to admit that he is getting advice from the absolute fringe.
but he almost never does that, does he?
he calmly asserts absurd things, and nobody has the audacity to question him on it.

[djAdvocate]

so, now we know that the voter fraud claims came from a woman that makes cactus sculpture in Minnesota, and this theory about the VP being able to overturn elections comes from Eastman, and we know that this notion that the PRA lets Trump keep everything comes from Fitton.  all three of those people are so far away from the conventional view that people think they are crazy.  so, we have a president that has culled information from the absolute fringe, and uses it to inform his path forward.

that kind of shit should be utterly disqualifying.

we need the best, most professional, most vetted advice for our president.  not a basket of crazy.

[billisonboard]

All fascinating stuff, djAdvocate.

So back to the topic of this thread: Do you think that the words Trump used in his speech were an admission to the one of the federal charges? 

[djAdvocate]

adding to previous (i can't read bills post):

we should select candidates that WANT the best information.
we, as voters, should do much better than Trump.

[laterbloomer]

Jun 14, 2023 21:42:14 GMT -5 kadee79 said:

In his own words.  In a speech he gave shortly after having been arrested/arraigned on Tue.!

MSNBC legal analyst Andrew Weissmann said former President Donald Trump admitted to one of the federal charges he is facing just hours after being arraigned.

On Tuesday, Trump pleaded not guilty to 37 counts stemming from his retention of government documents after he left office. The Department of Justice says some of those documents were classified and that he repeatedly obstructed the government’s efforts to retrieve them.

Hours later, Trump delivered a speech from his golf resort in Bedminster, New Jersey, where he claimed he had “every right under the Presidential Records Act” to take the documents. He also said he was not aware of everything that was in the boxes of materials he took because he did not have enough time to sort through them.

Appearing on The Last Word, Weissmann, a former assistant U.S. attorney and former FBI general counsel who later joined Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team investigating Trump, said the former president admitted to a crime.

“That was written in the teleprompter,” host Lawrence O’Donnell said about Trump’s speech. “His lawyers probably knew that he was going to be saying this tonight. He didn’t just, you know, wing it. That was a considered choice.”

Weissmann said Trump’s speech amounted to a confession.

www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/former-fbi-general-counsel-says-trump-admitted-to-a-crime-during-tuesday-night-speech-that-is-an-admission-to-that-charge/ar-AA1cw9yF?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=f7295f131cea4920ec63c7ed1ca4fdbd&ei=53

It sounds like his defense is going to be fighting about what the law is. Can the judge dismiss the charges if she agrees with that interpretation of the law?

[djAdvocate]

Jun 15, 2023 18:15:00 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Jun 14, 2023 21:42:14 GMT -5 kadee79 said:

In his own words.  In a speech he gave shortly after having been arrested/arraigned on Tue.!

www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/former-fbi-general-counsel-says-trump-admitted-to-a-crime-during-tuesday-night-speech-that-is-an-admission-to-that-charge/ar-AA1cw9yF?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=f7295f131cea4920ec63c7ed1ca4fdbd&ei=53

It sounds like his defense is going to be fighting about what the law is. Can the judge dismiss the charges if she agrees with that interpretation of the law?

she can throw out the charges for any reason she likes, apparently.  she can also give them a sentence of no time.  

[hurley1980]

Jun 15, 2023 18:27:48 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jun 15, 2023 18:15:00 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

It sounds like his defense is going to be fighting about what the law is. Can the judge dismiss the charges if she agrees with that interpretation of the law?

she can throw out the charges for any reason she likes, apparently.  she can also give them a sentence of no time.  

This scares me!

[happyhoix]

Jun 15, 2023 15:16:56 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i would love, FOR ONCE, if someone would ask Trump this question when he asserts something ridiculous:

"who told you that/how did you find that out"?

i mean, he would probably say "well isn't it just obvious?"
to which you could reply- no, it is not at all obvious, and repeat the question.

for ONCE i would like him to admit that he is getting advice from the absolute fringe.
but he almost never does that, does he?
he calmly asserts absurd things, and nobody has the audacity to question him on it.

He’d just do that ‘everyone is saying’ bullshit he uses.

[happyhoix]

Jun 15, 2023 16:42:37 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

adding to previous (i can't read bills post):

we should select candidates that WANT the best information.
we, as voters, should do much better than Trump.

Can you imagine if he gets elected in 2024 the kind of whack job head cases that would agree to be in his cabinet or on his staff, after what’s happened to so many of his advisers during the first term - either fired by tweet or quit under a cloud or drank the koolaid and getting thrown to the wolves (looking at you, Mark Meadows - better decide which side you’re on in the J6th case).

[djAdvocate]

Jun 16, 2023 13:29:51 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Jun 15, 2023 15:16:56 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i would love, FOR ONCE, if someone would ask Trump this question when he asserts something ridiculous:

"who told you that/how did you find that out"?

i mean, he would probably say "well isn't it just obvious?"
to which you could reply- no, it is not at all obvious, and repeat the question.

for ONCE i would like him to admit that he is getting advice from the absolute fringe.
but he almost never does that, does he?
he calmly asserts absurd things, and nobody has the audacity to question him on it.

He’d just do that ‘everyone is saying’ bullshit he uses.

"everyone including........?  just name ONE person, Mr Trump"

[NastyWoman]

Jun 15, 2023 14:57:26 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

abovethelaw.com/2023/06/trump-and-his-minions-continue-to-lie-about-the-clinton-socks-case/

this is worth the read, to get your head around this subject.

Tom Fitton WRONGLY reads the verdict from a 2012 case, or intentionally leaves out portions that do not suit his position.  the "Socks Case" does NOT state that the president can declare all presidential materials "personal".  in fact, it states quite clearly that any declaration of ANY kind has to be made BEFORE THE PRESIDENT LEAVES OFFICE:

"Fitton and Trump have strangely ignored the parts where the Judge Jackson said that the decision to designate an item as personal must be “made during, and not after, the presidency.” This is consonant with the plain language of the PRA which specifies that documents “shall, to the extent practicable, be categorized as Presidential records or personal records upon their creation or receipt and be filed separately,” i.e. not years after the fact when the outgoing executive decides it would be cool to keep information on Israel’s nuclear program and/or plans for a military invasion of Iran."

in other words, Trump (and every other president and VP) should make these decisions and/or separations BEFORE they leave office.  how difficult is it to put personal records in one box and presidential records in another?  not too difficult- but apparently too difficult for most presidents and VP's.  which is why the National Archives gave Trump FOURTEEN MONTHS to sort his shit out before they declared him uncooperative.  

but now we can see why he was uncooperative.  because Fitton told him to.

again....Fitton is not a lawyer.  he is just some dude who thinks he knows the law.  but apparently he can't be bothered to read through even the CASE HE IS CITING to see where Trump actually falls in that case (namely, on the wrong side of it).

NOTE: the documents in the socks case were NOT declared presidential records.  so the PRA could not be used to recover them.  ditto for all PERSONAL material.  so, Trump and Fitton are WRONGLY conflating personal and presidential material.  that is not going to hold up in court.

Now whether he is uncooperative because Fitton told him so is very much a chicken and the egg question IMO. We all know the loser will not listen to advice he does not like. I don't know anything about Fitton so I can't really say whether it is likely that the loser listened to his advice or whether Fitton mouthed the opinion the loser want(ed)s to hear. Either way the result is the same. No cooperation = indictment 

[Opti]

Jun 16, 2023 13:47:02 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jun 16, 2023 13:29:51 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

He’d just do that ‘everyone is saying’ bullshit he uses.

"everyone including........?  just name ONE person, Mr Trump"

The proper response is besides you, who says this? Name names so we can follow up. 

[laterbloomer]

Jun 17, 2023 17:22:44 GMT -5 Opti said:

Jun 16, 2023 13:47:02 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

"everyone including........?  just name ONE person, Mr Trump"

The proper response is besides you, who says this? Name names so we can follow up. 

"Some very smart people..."

[djAdvocate]

Jun 17, 2023 17:05:39 GMT -5 NastyWoman said:

Jun 15, 2023 14:57:26 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

abovethelaw.com/2023/06/trump-and-his-minions-continue-to-lie-about-the-clinton-socks-case/

this is worth the read, to get your head around this subject.

Tom Fitton WRONGLY reads the verdict from a 2012 case, or intentionally leaves out portions that do not suit his position.  the "Socks Case" does NOT state that the president can declare all presidential materials "personal".  in fact, it states quite clearly that any declaration of ANY kind has to be made BEFORE THE PRESIDENT LEAVES OFFICE:

"Fitton and Trump have strangely ignored the parts where the Judge Jackson said that the decision to designate an item as personal must be “made during, and not after, the presidency.” This is consonant with the plain language of the PRA which specifies that documents “shall, to the extent practicable, be categorized as Presidential records or personal records upon their creation or receipt and be filed separately,” i.e. not years after the fact when the outgoing executive decides it would be cool to keep information on Israel’s nuclear program and/or plans for a military invasion of Iran."

in other words, Trump (and every other president and VP) should make these decisions and/or separations BEFORE they leave office.  how difficult is it to put personal records in one box and presidential records in another?  not too difficult- but apparently too difficult for most presidents and VP's.  which is why the National Archives gave Trump FOURTEEN MONTHS to sort his shit out before they declared him uncooperative.  

but now we can see why he was uncooperative.  because Fitton told him to.

again....Fitton is not a lawyer.  he is just some dude who thinks he knows the law.  but apparently he can't be bothered to read through even the CASE HE IS CITING to see where Trump actually falls in that case (namely, on the wrong side of it).

NOTE: the documents in the socks case were NOT declared presidential records.  so the PRA could not be used to recover them.  ditto for all PERSONAL material.  so, Trump and Fitton are WRONGLY conflating personal and presidential material.  that is not going to hold up in court.

Now whether he is uncooperative because Fitton told him so is very much a chicken and the egg question IMO. We all know the loser will not listen to advice he does not like. I don't know anything about Fitton so I can't really say whether it is likely that the loser listened to his advice or whether Fitton mouthed the opinion the loser want(ed)s to hear. Either way the result is the same. No cooperation = indictment 

good point.  he rarely does anything he doesn't want to do.

you are right in that he forms his own misguided opinion, and then seeks out "professionals" that echo it.  that is totally valid.  i never really know how to talk about Trump when it comes to stuff like this.  and that is because he usually blames someone else, even when it is his own damn fault.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 17, 2023 20:44:40 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Jun 17, 2023 17:22:44 GMT -5 Opti said:

The proper response is besides you, who says this? Name names so we can follow up. 

"Some very smart people..."

i am in favor of running out the clock if he refuses to answer the question.  just go 60 minutes, and then say "well since Mr Trump refused to answer even the most basic question, that wasn't very productive.  but at least we know that about him, now".

[laterbloomer]

Jun 18, 2023 18:14:50 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jun 17, 2023 20:44:40 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

"Some very smart people..."

i am in favor of running out the clock if he refuses to answer the question.  just go 60 minutes, and then say "well since Mr Trump refused to answer even the most basic question, that wasn't very productive.  but at least we know that about him, now".

WE already know that about him. I bet really everyone knows that about him. They just don't care. My new theory is that it's not like they love him so much, they just hate the rest so much. They don't see him as doing any more damage than anyone else but at least they get to torture everyone the way they feel tortured.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 18, 2023 19:35:28 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Jun 18, 2023 18:14:50 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i am in favor of running out the clock if he refuses to answer the question.  just go 60 minutes, and then say "well since Mr Trump refused to answer even the most basic question, that wasn't very productive.  but at least we know that about him, now".

WE already know that about him. I bet really everyone knows that about him.

no!

i would argue that what we KNOW is that he uses this tactic to get people to change the subject.  and rather than confronting him on it, people just cave.

in other words, he has his OWN game that he is playing.  and when the rest of us try to get him to play OUR game, and he just goes and does his own thing.  rather than FORCING him to play our game, or OPTING OUT, we just let him run the show.

i am tired of it.  i would love it to stop.  letting him get away with this OVER AND OVER again will ensure that he will continue to be viewed as a POSSIBLE candidate, rather than what he is- a fascist, and an extreme danger to the republic.

[laterbloomer]

Jun 18, 2023 19:59:31 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jun 18, 2023 19:35:28 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

WE already know that about him. I bet really everyone knows that about him.

no!

i would argue that what we KNOW is that he uses this tactic to get people to change the subject.  and rather than confronting him on it, people just cave.

in other words, he has his OWN game that he is playing.  and when the rest of us try to get him to play OUR game, and he just goes and does his own thing, rather than FORCING him to play our game, or OPTING OUT, we just let him run the show.

i am tired of it.  i would love it to stop.  but letting him get away with this OVER AND OVER again will ensure that he will continue to be viewed as a POSSIBLE candidate, rather than what he is not- a fascist.

The only way that works is if everyone makes him play by the rules. FOX News and friends won't.

[djAdvocate]

yeah.  this is what i hate about being optimistic.