• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

News Trump: Mar-a-Lago just raided by FBI

Page 135 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I kept telling folks on here that Trump hasn't even been charged yet. Just because some bumbling pundits and really bad news writers mix up civil and criminal allegations does not mean Trump is facing criminal charges.

But when I wrote that, people went nuts with rage.

Trump has not been criminally charged and a civil lawsuits will not put him in prison. I think he should be charged and imprisoned. But losing your mind in a tantrum is not the same as convincing a jury or a judge a person you really don't like should go to prison.

Making a criminal case against Trump will be difficult because of the way he operates. Trump does not directly spell out his intentions. He suggests it and unless insiders come forward and testify to this, it will be nearly impossible to nail him.

All of this is explained by Paul Rosenzweig, a principal at Red Branch Consulting, who once oversaw the U.S. Secret Service. He predicts Trump will never go to jail, no matter how much people believe he should. He covers all this in this article, but alas, it's behind a paywall.

www.theatlantic.com

Stop Waiting for Trump to Get Convicted

The chances that the criminal cases against the former president will be successful are slim to none, and that will only embolden him and his followers.
www.theatlantic.com www.theatlantic.com
 
Last edited by a moderator:
His conviction on the espionage charge "is a slam dunk." The federal charges could be pardoned in the future, but not the states' charges, which are formidable. Convictions are a certainty as well as indictments (watch the video). It's the sentencing that's uncertain and it depends on the judge(s).
 
Please cite the espionage charge Trump is facing. Because I have not read of any criminal charge lodged against Trump.

Nothing is a slam dunk.

"Courts don’t accept hearsay. They don’t let witnesses testify to what someone else told them was true. They don’t allow anonymous witnesses," Paul Rosenzweig wrote in the The Atlantic article.

"Imagining how these limitations will play out in the Trump trials is easy. Some of what we know about what happened, we know only indirectly. To cite but one example, consider the infamous meeting among Trump, Vice President Mike Pence, and one of Trump’s advisers, John Eastman, just before January 6," he continued.

"Almost all of what we know about that meeting is from external sources—such as the legal memo Eastman handed out that is now public,"

I doubt folks close to Trump will be falling over themselves to willingly testify against him - although I wish they would. "Mueller Time" it wasn't. We might not ever convict Trump of crimes we wish he could be charged with. Because the first step is actually charging him with a criminal act.
 
Unfortunately actually CONVICTING the Dumpster even on a traffic-ticket would anything but a "slam-dunk" IRL.

I'll believe he even gets charged or goes on trial when I see it.
 
Lezunto said:
Please cite the espionage charge Trump is facing. Because I have not read of any criminal charge lodged against Trump.

Nothing is a slam dunk.

"Courts don’t accept hearsay. They don’t let witnesses testify to what someone else told them was true. They don’t allow anonymous witnesses," Paul Rosenzweig wrote in the The Atlantic article.

"Imagining how these limitations will play out in the Trump trials is easy. Some of what we know about what happened, we know only indirectly. To cite but one example, consider the infamous meeting among Trump, Vice President Mike Pence, and one of Trump’s advisers, John Eastman, just before January 6," he continued.

"Almost all of what we know about that meeting is from external sources—such as the legal memo Eastman handed out that is now public,"

I doubt folks close to Trump will be falling over themselves to willingly testify against him - although I wish they would. "Mueller Time" it wasn't. We might not ever convict Trump of crimes we wish he could be charged with. Because the first step is actually charging him with a criminal act.
Click to expand...
The issue you're facing is that here in P&N hearsay about Trump is accepted as fact, so long as it's on the criminal side of things. That's never going to change because it's an emotion based conclusion with "facts" that are accusations and speculation from others that share Trump hate.

I'll now have at least half a dozen angry responses proving beyond a doubt that Trump is guilty of crime X, and that I'm an ignorant Trump humper.
 
Muse said:
His conviction on the espionage charge "is a slam dunk." The federal charges could be pardoned in the future, but not the states' charges, which are formidable. Convictions are a certainty as well as indictments (watch the video). It's the sentencing that's uncertain and it depends on the judge(s).
Click to expand...

I watched your half hour video and everything they said was based on Special Master Dearie's rulings backing Trump into a corner. Basically the lawyers on the show said 'There is no arguments Trump can make when backed into a corner like this!' but of course Cannon just told Dearie to stop trying to do the job she hired him to do, stop making hard requests of Trump's lawyers. Per Cannon his only real job is to delay the case until after the midterm.

I am actually unsure of what the Special Master is supposed to be doing now. In her ruling yesterday she effectively removed all the tasks she appointed him to do.
 
Greenman said:
The issue you're facing is that here in P&N hearsay about Trump is accepted as fact, so long as it's on the criminal side of things. That's never going to change because it's an emotion based conclusion with "facts" that are accusations and speculation from others that share Trump hate.

I'll now have at least half a dozen angry responses proving beyond a doubt that Trump is guilty of crime X, and that I'm an ignorant Trump humper.
Click to expand...

such an adorable deplorable 😏
 
Lezunto said:
Please cite the espionage charge Trump is facing. Because I have not read of any criminal charge lodged against Trump.

Nothing is a slam dunk.

"Courts don’t accept hearsay. They don’t let witnesses testify to what someone else told them was true. They don’t allow anonymous witnesses," Paul Rosenzweig wrote in the The Atlantic article.

"Imagining how these limitations will play out in the Trump trials is easy. Some of what we know about what happened, we know only indirectly. To cite but one example, consider the infamous meeting among Trump, Vice President Mike Pence, and one of Trump’s advisers, John Eastman, just before January 6," he continued.

"Almost all of what we know about that meeting is from external sources—such as the legal memo Eastman handed out that is now public,"

I doubt folks close to Trump will be falling over themselves to willingly testify against him - although I wish they would. "Mueller Time" it wasn't. We might not ever convict Trump of crimes we wish he could be charged with. Because the first step is actually charging him with a criminal act.
Click to expand...
You're talking out your hat. Watch the fucking video. There are legal experts, more than them, saying the espionage charge "is a slam dunk." You say it's not but you don't know what you're talking about.
 
SMOGZINN said:
I watched your half hour video and everything they said was based on Special Master Dearie's rulings backing Trump into a corner. Basically the lawyers on the show said 'There is no arguments Trump can make when backed into a corner like this!' but of course Cannon just told Dearie to stop trying to do the job she hired him to do, stop making hard requests of Trump's lawyers. Per Cannon his only real job is to delay the case until after the midterm.

I am actually unsure of what the Special Master is supposed to be doing now. In her ruling yesterday she effectively removed all the tasks she appointed him to do.
Click to expand...
The JD has free reign to conduct their investigations and work up an indictment and they will.
 
Muse said:
The JD has free reign to conduct their investigations and work up an indictment and they will.
Click to expand...
Surely Charlie will kick the ball this time!

No doubt that for now DOJ can continue their investigation, but everything they talked about in that videos is pointless now because it was all based on SM Dearie backing Trump in a corner with his questions, and that has been neatly sidestepped. So we are back to trusting that surely Lucy will eventually let Charlie kick the ball.
 
Lezunto said:
I kept telling folks on here that Trump hasn't even been charged yet. Just because some bumbling pundits and really bad news writers mix up civil and criminal allegations does not mean Trump is facing criminal charges.

But when I wrote that, people went nuts with rage.

Trump has not been criminally charged and a civil lawsuits will not put him in prison. I think he should be charged and imprisoned. But losing your mind in a tantrum is not the same as convincing a jury or a judge a person you really don't like should go to prison.

Making a criminal case against Trump will be difficult because of the way he operates. Trump does not directly spell out his intentions. He suggests it and unless insiders come forward and testify to this, it will be nearly impossible to nail him.

All of this is explained by Paul Rosenzweig, a principal at Red Branch Consulting, who once oversaw the U.S. Secret Service. He predicts Trump will never go to jail, no matter how much people believe he should. He covers all this in this article, but alas, it's behind a paywall.

www.theatlantic.com

Stop Waiting for Trump to Get Convicted

The chances that the criminal cases against the former president will be successful are slim to none, and that will only embolden him and his followers.
www.theatlantic.com www.theatlantic.com
Click to expand...
People "went nuts" because you were arguing with a mirror. Literally no one in this thread claims he's been criminally charged. The closest thing is discussion on possible charges under investigation.
 
Greenman said:
The issue you're facing is that here in P&N hearsay about Trump is accepted as fact, so long as it's on the criminal side of things. That's never going to change because it's an emotion based conclusion with "facts" that are accusations and speculation from others that share Trump hate.

I'll now have at least half a dozen angry responses proving beyond a doubt that Trump is guilty of crime X, and that I'm an ignorant Trump humper.
Click to expand...
There are pictures of classified data at his fucking house. How the fuck is that hearsay?

Just admit you will never accept evidence against Trump as legitimate and like most trump loyalist have made "due process" and "hearsay" their favorite terms without having any understanding of what those terms mean.
 
Muse said:
You're talking out your hat. Watch the fucking video. There are legal experts, more than them, saying the espionage charge "is a slam dunk." You say it's not but you don't know what you're talking about.
Click to expand...
He's upset because you are talking about a possible charge while calling it "the charge," instead of "the possible charge." Because you dropped the word possible, he is going to post many walls of text arguing with himself.
 
Zorba said:
There are pictures of classified data at his fucking house. How the fuck is that hearsay?

Just admit you will never accept evidence against Trump as legitimate and like most trump loyalist have made "due process" and "hearsay" their favorite terms without having any understanding of what those terms mean.
Click to expand...
And Trump has claimed they were planted then he claims he has them but declassified them by psychic powers. Hello?

Yet he is still Greenman's Guy. Nobody would defend this guy unless he was there guy deep down like that. He refuses to answer fskimopy's reasonable questions and it just looks pathetic. The guy's mind is scrambled.
 
Last edited:
Muse said:
His conviction on the espionage charge "is a slam dunk." The federal charges could be pardoned in the future, but not the states' charges, which are formidable. Convictions are a certainty as well as indictments (watch the video). It's the sentencing that's uncertain and it depends on the judge(s).
Click to expand...

No, it's not. It's full of legal areas that have never been decided before. Meaning even if he were charged and convicted, you're looking at YEARS and YEARS of challenges all the way to SCOTUS. Which even if successful, it's likely he'd be too old to serve time or maybe even dead by then. That's assuming he gets convicted (or charged even) considering it would only take one of his faithful to throw a jury.

It's a pipe dream.
 
Lezunto said:
I know Trump has made comments about his daughter's looks. But I have never ever read that he wanted to actually have sex with this daughter.

That seems to be a gross exaggeration of what has been made public.

This is the problem many Trump haters have: Stretching the truth until it becomes an outright lie. I don't like him. But I never followed him. The YouTube video shows Ivanka apparently getting a laugh out of her father's comments.

www.snopes.com

Did Donald Trump Say He'd Like to Date His Daughter?

Donald Trump kinda sorta once said that he'd like to date his daughter Ivanka, but he was clearly joking.
www.snopes.com www.snopes.com

Click to expand...
He said on a radio interview he would "date" her. Knowing Trump that would have to include sex.
 
Dave_5k said:
Cannon overrules the special master - reviewing them as de novo issues, rather than what should be abuse of discretion standard for overturning a special master (not that I expect Cannon at this point to either know or follow the law)

1) Trump doesn't have to formally claim any of the documents are his or even were in his possession, but he is still allowed to proceed with lawsuit to get "his" documents back.
2) Cannon allows timeline to drag out a minimum of another month - per Trump's request - overruling special master on both timeline and process in favor of Trump
Click to expand...
Trump's team got word back to Cannon they need more time to craft a legal lie. Tough to do since Trump does not tell the truth in public
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top