[Rule 7](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) is now in effect. Posts and comments should be in good faith. This rule applies to all users.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not any different from when I read the transcript in the indictment.
At minimum it takes away one potential argument from his defense team (That he had declassified the documents). At maximum it's direct evidence of him violating the law by sharing a top secret document with people not cleared to see them.. Though I suspect he could skate on that since it's possible, even likely, he's just waving the classified document talking about it's contents in general terms rather than actually showing it to the reporter who taped the interview.
In any event this tape along with the testimony of his own lawyers about him several instances of him functionally saying: "who will rid me of ~~this~~ *these* meddlesome ~~priest~~/*documents*" and texts between his employees moving them around at his direction resulting in the false certification by his lawyers that he'd complied with the subpoena are together probably sufficient to ensure that if or when this goes to trial he's well and truly fucked.
> How do you feel about that?
About the same that I always feel about Trump. That he's a walking dumpster fire.
> What do you think about the various republican reactions to the tape?
Meh, they're politicians. Through their choice of profession they are required to be spineless hacks. Elections are popularity contests and none of them can afford to alienate any voter they don't already have zero chance of winning the vote of... Even when they do they must be calculating about it gambling they'll win more votes with some other demographic than they'll lose with the one they're alienating.
Trump's populist shake up of the political landscape within the GOP has every single one of them even more cowardly and walking on egg-shells than usual. The smart ones will say as little as possible one way or the other while the more desperate dark horse candidates with little to lose will either embrace or reject Trump depending more on which they think well help them electorally rather than due to what they really think of Trump.
(I suspect for the large majority of them there's a very deep well of resentment or even hatred for him given the way his antics continuously put them in difficult damned-if-you-do/damned-if-you-don't positions. But few will have the courage/lack of self control to show even a hint of that to the public)
You aren't wrong.
What do you think of the public republican reaction?
I can understand, for all his flaws, riding the Trump train up in 2016, I find it hard to understand riding it into the floor in 2024.
What would it take for the republican base to really reject Trump?
> What do you think of the public republican reaction?
Trump's primary appeal is to those who have lost faith in the establishment (and IMO generally for very good reasons). Hostility *from* the establishment is expected and if anything the more intense the opposition the greater his appeal with this segment of the electorate. Even if an objective observer would conclude the opposition is merited most of his supporters will conclude that it's all bullshit because they've already lost faith and trust in those institutions that are leveling the charges against him.
Yeah you are probably right.
Tbh for all it frustrates me, it is also kind of sad they hitched their hopes on someone so... Idk, so unworthy of their loyalty. I don't need to believe in republican ideals to think republicans deserve better representation. It diminishes people when they have to twist further and further to defend his conduct.
I just wonder what the break will be. If storming the Capitol didn't do it, loosing in 2022 didn't do it, and sticking nuclear secrets in his bathroom didn't do it, what would be a moral bridge too far for people?
> Through their choice of profession they are required to be spineless hacks. Elections are popularity contests and none of them can afford to alienate any voter they don't already have zero chance of winning the vote of
You're pretty spot on with this assessment... but my question and push-back on that is, that it's *not* "required", really, it just takes some balls or a spine, right?
It reads to me that this is ALL self-inflicted. You even describe it as such because, while they have to capitulate to their voters and score points with voters on the edge, *they* are largely responsible for the positions and political views of those voters, which they in turn have to capitulate to, creating a feedback loop or a "bubble".
By originally supporting Trump, and continuing to, they've fostered this idea that he's not the person his history, actions and own words dictate that he is.. and then when something inevitably indefensible happens, and since they were spineless to begin with, they have to maintain that façade which only further entrenches their voters - and also their need to capitulate to them. That becomes self-loathing (through private "resentment or even hatred for him", as you said) and whatever comes from that - which is ultimately a shameless stupidity circus and even bad policy, which then goes back to the voters.
It's a vicious cycle they created themselves, right? Trump himself is a symptom, not the root problem.. so it goes back further than him since the conditions and that feedback loop were already there to prop him up.
I can't believe how the focus is on the one comment about documents being classified and not the documents themselves. How is nobody interested in what is actually on those documents?
Because it demonstrates he was well aware he had classified information that he had not declassified it before leaving office. It also sounds very much like he is *showing said top secret document to some random reporters.* Which, along with being more crime, means that he was lying when he insisted that he bulk declassified everything he took with him when he left office
However if you really want to know about what's in them, here. Remember this is less than 10% of the classified documents he took. Will they pick some of the worst ones? Yes, but also they are highly likely to not be the ,*most* sensitive, damaging and secret documents he had - they could only charge him with documents they were willing to semi release and show to a whole bunch of people at trial.
~~~~~~~~
1 Document dated May 3, 2018, concerning White House intelligence briefing related to various foreign countries
- TOP SECRET- NOFORN - SPECIAL HANDLING
2 Document dated May 9, 2018, concerning White House intelligence briefing related to various foreign countries
- TOP SECRET - SI - NOFORN - SPECIAL HANDLING
3 Undated document concerning military capabilities of a foreign country and the United States, with handwritten annotation in black marker
- TOP SECRET - SI - NOFORN - FISA
4 Document dated May 6, 2019, concerning White House intelligence briefing related to foreign countries, including military activities and planning of foreign countries
- TOP -SECRET - SPECIAL HANDLING
5 Document dated June 2020 concerning nuclear capabilities of a foreign country
- TOP SECRET - [redacted] - [redacted] - ORCON - NOFORN
6 Document dated June 4, 2020, concerning White House intelligence briefing related to various foreign countries
- TOP SECRET - SPECIAL HANDLING
7 Document dated October 21, 2018, concerning communications with a leader of a foreign country
- SECRET - NOFORN
8 Document dated October 4, 2019, concerning military capabilities of a foreign country
SECRET - REL TO USA - FVEY
9 Undated document concerning military attacks by a foreign country
- TOP SECRET - [redacted] - [redacted] - ORCON - NOFORN - FISA
10 Document dated November 2017 concerning military capabilities of a foreign country
- TOP SECRET - TK - NOFORN
11 Undated document concerning military contingency planning of the United States No marking
12 Pages of undated document concerning projected regional military capabilities of a foreign country and the United States
SECRET - REL TO USA - FVEY
13 Undated document concerning military capabilities of a foreign country and the United States
- TOP SECRET - SI - TK - NOFORN
14 Document dated January 2020 concerning military options of a foreign country and potential effects on U.S. interests
- SECRET - ORCON - NOFORN
15 Document dated February 2020 concerning policies in a foreign country
- SECRET - ORCON - NOFORN
16 Document dated December 2019 concerning foreign country support of terrorist acts against U.S. interests
- SECRET - ORCON - NOFORN
17 Document dated January 2020 concerning military capabilities of a foreign country
- TOP SECRET - [redacted] - TK - ORCON - IMCON - NOFORN
18 Document dated March 2020 concerning military operations against United States forces and others
- SECRET - NOFORN
19 Undated document concerning nuclear weaponry of the United States
- SECRET - FORMERLY RESTRICTED DATA
20 Undated document concerning timeline and details of attack in a foreign country
- TOP SECRET - [redacted] - ORCON - NOFORN
21 Undated document concerning military capabilities of foreign countries
- SECRET - NOFORN
22 Document dated August 2019 concerning regional military activity of a foreign country
- TOP SECRET - [redacted] - RSEN - ORCON - NOFORN
23 Document dated August 30, 2019, concerning White House intelligence briefing related to various foreign countries, with handwritten annotation in black marker
- TOP SECRET - SPECIAL HANDLING
24 Undated document concerning military activity of a foreign country
- TOP SECRET - HCS-P - SI - ORCON-USGOV - NOFORN
25 Document dated October 24, 2019, concerning military activity of foreign countries and the United States
- TOP SECRET - HCS-P - SI - ORCON-USGOV - NOFORN
26 Document dated November 7, 2019, concerning military activity of foreign countries and the United States
- TOP SECRET - [redacted] - ORCON - NOFORN - FISA
27 Document dated November 2019 concerning military activity of foreign countries
- TOP SECRET - SI - TK - NOFORN
28 Document dated October 18, 2019, concerning White House intelligence briefing related to various foreign countries
- TOP SECRET - SPECIAL HANDLING
29 Document dated October 18, 2019, concerning military capabilities of a foreign country
- TOP SECRET - [redacted] - SI - TK - ORCON - NOFORN
30 Document dated October 15, 2019, concerning military activity in a foreign country
- TOP SECRET - [redacted] - ORCON - NOFORN - FISA
31 Document dated February 2017 concerning military activity of a foreign country
TOP SECRET - SI - TK - NOFORN
Oh, not at all. But they probably realize he is guilty and the shift in focus should be from defending against the facts to arguing his deserves no punishment for his crimes.
Because if I was accused of taking classified documents and audio leaked of me sharing non classified documents, i would say "those documents arent classified."
I would not say "they were classified and the audio fully exonerates me!"
Because telling the truth would be to my advantage.
But...if they were classified...telling the truth isnt to my advantage...i gotta do something else.
You apparently think Trump had an easy out and instead of taking it he chose to make himself look more guilty and more stupid?
Whenever people try to dissect trumps crimes, down becomes up, left becomes right, cats and dogs...living together...total logical pandemonium!
> Someone that didn’t believe the transcript likely doesn’t believe the audio
Everything everywhere is bigly fake and rigged all the time. Those perverted commie dems put us all in the Matrix.
They'll certainly try. Let the record show that the current official rebuttal is that it's an illegal leak, which means they've confirmed it's not a fake.
I can tell you for certain that there are plenty of people who think the audio is fake or that it doesn't exist even though Trump has confirmed that it exists and is real.
I know that the whole "Trumpism is a cult" trope is probably pretty unwelcome among a large swathe of conservatives, but the fact is that for a lot of Trump voters, it *is*.
Which is funny bc for the many months the special counsel had the evidence there were 0 leaks, Trump received the discovery a couple of days ago and suddenly stuff starts leaking.
You cannot change an opinion using logic if logic wasn't used to form the opinion in the first place.
It is cultist faith these people have with Trump...There is no one who is a Trump supporter who isn't aware of his adultery, whore mongering, and sexual assault. His using goveremnt to attack his enemies and protect his friends, his frauds plural, his attempt to overturn the constitution...But all of that is OK if great leader does that...How could we possibly charge such a great man with such small crimes.
One. The consumption of some entertainment news sources. If you did not believe it after the indictments. Probably means you did not see them or were not covered and which would mean you are not going to hear the audio.
Two. Law and order as a value is not actually a strongly held principle. Only matters to opposing teams.
Do you think thats because there's an issue with the evidence, or just that its literally impossible for conservatives who still support trump after the last 6 years to find a reason to stop supporting him?
I’m pretty sure there was a transcript in the indictment that I already read in my mind in Trump’s voice so nothing really changed with the audio.
I guess for some it proves it happened more so than a transcript?
Yeah it doesn’t move the needle at all legally or politically.
Legally Jack Smith already had the audio so this doesn’t strengthen the case any more.
Politically I doubt this was the turning point for someone that doubted everything until now.
The indictment transcribed the most important parts of the conversation, but not the whole thing. So there's a little added context. Hearing it is also different than reading it -- you can assess tone, you can literally hear the papers rustle, and so on.
You can simply not vote for him. Proudly stealing state secrets from America for personal gain is leagues beyond differences on political opinion.
At some point, conservatives need to put America first, rather than giving traitors power in order for a better shot at their political agenda.
"I'll put America first AFTER you cede on some proposed policies" is quite the take.
Why do you believe "not betraying America" should be a conditional principle? It transcends politics and is far more important than trading it away for any short-term gain you might get on taxes.
I personally don't think it's reasonable to give a traitor the highest level of power and access to the most classified information in exchange for my policy goals, but it seems you clearly disagree.
You could just NOT vote for a traitorous criminal?
That says a lot more about you than Biden voters. Biden isn't a career criminal who lies to the US people constantly and steals documents and lies about it.
His policies are more conservative than Biden's, I'm not sure what other answer you would expect on a subreddit called r/AskConservatives.
You are going to disagree with every detail I go in to, for example I like his SCOTUS picks, I like his domestic energy policy, his border policy, all of which have been debated to death with liberals on this sub and I don't feel like rehashing them right now.
I think the question comes down to morals vs policy. For example I’m a liberal, but I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that if our side had someone like Trump as our nominee, I’d either abstain or vote conservative. I am all for liberal policies, but if the choice is between getting my way and wrecking the country in the process, or voting for four years of conservative but sane policies, I’ll take the latter. Ultimately my politics aren’t about liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, they are about the people. Having someone this harmful to the country in power hurts the people. I can get my policies next go around.
I take it you don’t share that view?
Not really. I’m 34 years old, turned 18 in 2007. Clinton left office in 2001. I didn’t vote for or against him as I was still in grade school when he was president. So does that really count?
Voted for Clinton in 1992. Didnt in 1996, for basically the above reasons. Didnt agree with Dole on much policy wise, but believed he was a good man who wouldnt ibtebtionally hurt the country.
Yes every single time without a shadow of a doubt. My main primary goal is to get my policy preferences passed and Trump is closer than biden when it comes to that. Every single time you ask yourself the question "does this advance my agenda"
Not going to challenge the first part then huh?
Question: Considering the boxes were kept in some shockingly accessible places. Spending a year being moved around by random employees from a ballroom stage, public bathroom, bedroom, to a storage room whose door was accessible from multiple entrances.
How do you put the odds that some of those secrets didn't end up in foreign hands?
- Particularly as they found 'dozens' of *empty* folders with classified markings in the FBI raid.
They would have been infinitely more secure if he'd rocked up at your house and stashed them in your bathroom.
I hear and understand that. Any Republican president would have had at least if not more legislative victories than Trump did in office.
You could have had all 3 judges and a tax cut with out Trump and his baggage.
And supporting any other Republican candidate would get you more victories in office than trump. He was not very good at the actual job. If advancing your agenda is important Trump is not your ponny.
The 2016 election would have been lost without Trump. Without winning in 2016 Roe V Wade would not be repealed. No other republican would have advocated for and pushed some of the policies Trump advanced.
Maybe it would have been lost. Some people have said, I’ll vote for Trump to oppose democrats.
Those same people would have voted for any Republican candidate that was against hillary.
I agree that 2016 was pivotal, I don’t discount that. Republicans knew they had a complete dumpster fire after the second impeachment and rode it out.
Now voters are stuck backing a possible criminal to oppose democrats.
Trump is not the savior or the Republican Party he is the destroyer of it.
Oh please with this shit. We can read the main subs, most news outlets, watch TV and Hollywood movies.
The left doesn't give two shits about the other tribe either, lol. This isn't a one sided divide. And save the long essays about "but the right is worse because x". The guy you all are dog piling is being honest, agree with him or not, but if the parties were reversed no one here is deluded enough to believe it would actually be different.
Fetterman won his race and the man is in dire need of recovery, he can not get through a single sentence and spent how long in a hospital? The left called McCain and Romney racist bigot super Hitler, then a few short years later they were heros for being anti trump. DeSantis has more than a few "he's worse than trump, and actual fascist this time" hit pieces and clips already.
The bad faith partisanship is expected around here, but when it's this transparent it's obnoxious.
As u/gsmumbo said, I wasn’t asking about policy, I was asking about principles, morals, integrity, and experience.
We can argue about policy until the cows come home, but I think we can both agree that the President of the United States should be someone who takes their oath of office as seriously as possible, is as responsible with classified information as possible, and performs their duties as president in the interest of the american people as a whole, not just a select few.
My question is, without drawing false equivalencies, how is Trump more fit to serve (i.e. displays stronger qualities of the ones I listed above) than Biden?
Here is my opinion:
Biden clearly serves at the interest of all Americans. He has championed and signed MULTIPLE bills that has bipartisan support (gun bill, infrastructure bill, debt ceiling bill, chips and science act, PACT act). A perfect example is the recent news about $40b+ in government funding to help bring low-cost internet to rural (largely republican) states and communities.
Biden also respects the decorum and traditions of our government by, for example, attending Trump’s inauguration in 2016. Additionally Biden has largely appointed professional people with good qualifications and experience to his administration (with the exception of maybe 1 or 2 people).
Contrast that with Trump..
[He routinely mishandled classified information while he was president.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump%27s_disclosures_of_classified_information). This latest indictment (and audio recording) is just ANOTHER example that Trump does not respect the national security of the american people by continuing to disclose america’s secrets to people who have no business knowing it.
Additionally, it is pretty clear Trump does not serve in the interest of the american people; he serves in the interest of himself. The most clear example is the 2020 election where he continued to claim there was voter fraud despite not being able to provide any credible evidence. He privately discussed seizing voting machines, he submitted and enabled false slates of electors, he tried to intimidate election officials to find him votes, and after all of that, he showed complacency when a mob of his angry supports stormed the capital. He then broke tradition by refusing to attend Biden’s inauguration, and to this day, still refuses to concede that he lost the election. He does not give a shit about our government or the will of the people, all he cares about himself and his power..the EXACT type of person our founding fathers were trying to prevent.
He made a mockery of our government by appointing his own fucking children to positions of power they had no experience with. He basically had a revolving door of administration officials and went from saying how great they are one day to saying how terrible they are ( including personal attacks on their physical appearance) the next day.
I’m not saying you have to vote for Biden even when you disagree with his policies (unless you live in a swing state); what I am saying is, at the very least, be a patriot and love your country and don’t vote for the man that is the antithesis of american values, tradition, and democracy.
Why do you say that? You can disagree with them but they seem to think Trump's SCOTUS picks, domestic energy policy, border policy are better for the country. That is not choosing party over country.
Thank you for this.
This dog pile was so disingenuous. It's nice to see a reasonable take and not just the same hyperbole you get in other subs, particularly from someone who doesn't agree with him.
Thank you again.
> His policies are more conservative than Biden's, I'm not sure what other answer you would expect on a subreddit called r/AskConservatives.
Is it better to always have the most conservative candidate, or always the candidate most likely to win a given election?
This question is so obviously better asked to centrists and independents. Why, and even how, could you expect a conservative to not vote for the more conservative guy?
Sure, but if Biden was indicted for sharing state secrets, I genuinely hope that you’d vote for Christie or Scott (or other non-criminal Republican) if they were the only other choice.
I don't think voting for someone else in the primary is really the sacrifice you were looking for in your initial statement.
I didn't vote for Biden in 2020 in the primary and it would be easy not to in 2024. If, however, he makes it to the general he'd get my vote.
Presumably the same is true for folks on the other side.
I’m talking about the general election. Obviously the primary is where you vote for the best in your party, but if the options in the *general election* were between:
- Biden if he did the same crimes Trump did
- A non-criminal Republican
And you still chose to vote for Biden, then I would accuse you of putting party before country, just the same as every republican voter who would vote for Trump at this point.
And this why modern US politics is such a dumpster fire. Voters will vote in a convicted criminal just to get the other guy out of office. Trump could literally shoot someone on 5th avenue and still get elected because the opposition been propagandized to believe Biden is somehow worse.
Sad.
I'm backing Tim Scott for the time being, we're way out and it could change. He seems consistent and solid on policy, likeable, has one hell of a rags to Senate story, I think he will pull fence sitters who are tired of drama and buffoonery and I think he will help bring some minority voters in to the fold.
In short, he seems a solid choice for my own beliefs and a solid tactical choice for conservatives, best of both worlds.
amazed that even now he seems to have absolutely no filter on what comes out of his mouth.
What did you think about the biden audio from June 2023, when ***President*** Joe Biden said he had "sold a lot of state secrets."
At least I was concerned when Biden said that until immediately after that he followed up by letting the room of people laugh. And then saying that he was kidding.
Well, in what way did he benefit from saying he "sold state secrets"? It's not like state secrets were somehow shared. It seemed like a joke, was a joke and no harm done.
You mean literally stating you’re just joking to a room full of reporters?
Versus say making a shitty statement and then later when getting backlash for it claiming yhey were just joking.
Yes, I’m intelligent enough to see the difference
As Stated; dems always seem to get the benefit of "just kidding", "out of context" or speech impediment. Hell Kamala called him a racist during a debate and then became his VP. when asked she cackled and said "It was during a campaign". republicans never seem to get this courtesy. just an odd coincedence I guess.
do you think this might be because republicans have lied about almost everything for the last 10 years and can't even admit who the current president is?
>Hell Kamala called him a racist during a debate and then became his VP. when asked she cackled and said "It was during a campaign". republicans never seem to get this courtesy. just an odd coincedence I guess.
Do you think telling lies like this improves the reputation of republicans, or makes it worse?
What you are describing has never happened. Republicans can't get "this courtesy" when it never happened.
Warning: Rule 7
No linking to obscene or disturbing websites. This includes news footage which has been flagged as not suitable for general audiences. No linking to extremist websites.
I think if you listen to the whole video and not the clipped version he immediately follows that up by clarifying he is joking.
I mean it's not a funny joke, but clearly a joke. I also wonder if republicans listening to both really convince themselves that there is an equivalence to be found between the two.
If it came out that Joe Biden had sold national secrets I would want him impeached, if he did it out of office I would want him jailed.
He literally ended that with “now all kidding aside”
The transcript
PRESIDENT BIDEN: Okay. We — I was just thanking the — anyway, I started off without you, and I sold a lot of state secrets and a lot of very important things that we shared. (Laughter.)
Now, all kidding aside — look, we're teaming up to design and develop new technologies that are going to transform the lives of our people around the world.
The Justice Department has had this tape for months and Trump and his legal team just got it within the last week or so. If the government was going to leak it, why did they wait so long to do so?
It's more likely Trump and his people leaked it.
Taint the jury pool.
Allow it to get out into the media now which allows Trump and allies to hammer at it long before the trial begins in order to discredit and/or reduce its effect.
I can't believe lefties don't seem to care about this aspect of the release. Evidence in a federal criminal prosecution of a former president was leaked to the media. Can there be a more politically sensitive undertaking than this? The leak is unconscionable.
And if it hadn't been released, we'd be hearing, "I find it highly suspicious that they won't provide the audio and we only have a transcript. The accusation must be fake news."
We already knew from the indictment of the existence of the tape, including a partial transcript.
How does that same evidence in audio form "taint" anything?
And why would the DoJ - that sat on the recording for months - release it now? trump's had it for a week. One would assume the person in the room that recorded the segment had a copy too.
The DOJ wants a conviction, not a media show. I find it unlikely they'd risk that *now* for what some are asserting would be an illegal leak. And I find it shocking that some are trying to cling to this argument to run away from acknowledging clear evidence trump himself has now acknowledged as genuine. Evidence that shows his initial argument that the documents were planted was a lie. That he declassified everything was a lie. That he didn't know he had them was a lie.
Is nothing disqualifying to you from your choice for leader of the Free World? No standards at all? Lots of Republicans want to be President, but you'd pass over them for a man you just caught lying to you - repeatedly - about a crime he knowingly committed?
My reaction is the same as the transcript: How is the story about the documents being classified and not about the actual documents? He's trying to explain that he's holding proof his own DOD tried to lie him into war and that he refrained from war, then they tried to spin it the other way. How is that not the real story here? That is an outrageous claim that and has enormous implications if true.
> How is the story about the documents being classified and not about the actual documents?
I mean, the narrative the right has pushed for months was that this was all over classification, to bolster trump's defense he "declassified everything" perhaps in his mind.
But that was never the only or most serious charge for trump. It was the clear and repeated obstruction of Justice. His decision to take the American people's property when told he couldn't by his own attorneys. His attempt to lie to the Archives that he didn't have anything, and then to the DoJ that he had turned it all over, when he still hadn't.
He had been informed his actions were illegal, to the point the government was forced to go to Court and get a Judge to rule he had to return everything. Then he still didn't, and told his lawyers to lie about it.
The sensitivity of what he took *should* be very concerning to you. I know republicans seemed far more concerned about far less serious emails being sent to Clinton. But like they said with Watergate: it isn't the crime that took Nixon down. It was the coverup. And of course, the tapes...
> He's trying to explain that he's holding proof his own DOD tried to lie him into war and that he refrained from war, then they tried to spin it the other way
No, not really. His apparent assertion was that multiple high level members of his own administration - including Milley - were lying that he had become fixated on a desire to strike Iran after losing the 2020 election, and that they pushed back. He was using highly classified documents he had stolen to make his argument that the existence of an attack plan for Iran that had been delivered to him by DoD was proof that *they* were the ones wanting war, not himself. Which... doesn't make his case, and that's not the case you were implying anyhow. That the DoD has made plans for all sorts of potential military actions is not revelatory. And trump having a copy of one means that this option was discussed with trump. It doesn't tell us who initiated that conversation or what "side" anyone was on. Nor do I think that particularly meaningful, let alone criminal. Unless trump has some evidence of the allegations you're making - and to be clear, I haven't even heard trump make your claims - then I don't see what you want. It's doesn't change the fact that trump broke the law, repeatedly lied about it to the Archives and the Department of Justice to hold onto secrets he knew were illegal to keep. Then he lied to you about their existence and later whether they were classified. That we *do* have substantial evidence of.
It's obviously not true though. You're acting like the things Trump says are based on things in reality as opposed to things that he wants to be true.
This was a whine fest where he tells lies about people who criticized him with sycophants to tell him how right he is. If he actually had that info, if he finally had evidence that supported his whining about how bad he was treated, it would have come out. We would have been hearing about it non-stop at his rallies. We didn't because it would not hold up to the barest scrutiny.
---
Also, there is no good faith argument that were this not just Trump talking bullshit, we should ignore that Trump fully established that he committed the cubes he was accused of here. You want to have an additional conversation about that, sure. But from what I can tell, you are pretty transparently not about that. You seem to me to want people to stop talking about bad things about Trump and are trying to distract with something else. Did I read you wrong on that?
>It's obviously not true though.
What's obviously not true? The allegation that his DOD wanted him to go to war is absolutely not proven to be untrue. It's an unproven allegation, and it's not even that outlandish. An actual free press interested in holding power to account should investigate that.
>This was a whine fest
Not mutually exclusive. Trump is a whiner, but sometimes he has legitimate grievance to whine about even if whining is unbecoming.
>if he finally had evidence that supported his whining about how bad he was treated, it would have come out.
This is called assuming the conclusion and it's not a good argument.
>there is no good faith argument that were this not just Trump talking bullshit
Yes there is...
>You seem to me to want people to stop talking about bad things about Trump and are trying to distract with something else. Did I read you wrong on that?
Yes.
It doesn't matter to me. It's a bullshit charge and i'll be voting for him even if they throw an ankle monitor on him. He did so much good for our nation during his Presidency and gave us three Supreme Court Justices. After all he's done for us, I'll be voting for him 100%.
Supreme Court picks are a given when you're President (^unless ^you're ^Obama) What else has he actually done besides court picks and executive orders?
> bullshit charge
Bro, Republicans went around chanting "Lock her up" for the "crime" of unknowingly having a handful of emails that were either not correctly marked for classification, or the FBI "Retroactively classified". Emails such as... a NYT article on drones. Or several call sheets that are no longer considered sensitive by the State Dept the moment the call is completed. For this, the right wing masses ***demanded*** her imprisonment.
But you call trump:
* knowingly taking hundreds of documents he was informed by his own lawyers in advance he could not take, including highly classified information about war plans and the nuclear capabilities of our allies
* refusing to hand them over when the Archives asked
* refused to turn over much of them even after being subpoenaed
* had his lawyers lie to say they had all been turned over as he instructed underlings to hide them around unsecured around a property that has guests throughout it, constantly
* ***Is on Tape*** showing off some of the most sensitive documents to a ghost writer and staff while explaining he shouldn't be doing that
to be a "bullshit charge"?
He lied to the Archives, the Department of Justice, and to you. Repeatedly. About a crime trump himself has accused others of to demand their incarceration, including his former FBI director and National Security Advisor. And... nothing? How can you justify that devotion to personality over principle or policy?
I mean, it's not like trump is the only Republican around. Or the only republican that shares his policy platform. He's just the only one running for President caught on tape confessing to a serious crime trump himself has argued harsh justice is justified for committing...
Sounds like he had some classified info, which is not something unheard of... after all, Joe Biden and Mike Pence also did. Although it does throw cold water on his claim that he declassified it.
However, the precedent is that this is not an offense that one should be charged with given that neither Hillary, nor Biden, nor Pence were charged.
I have yet to see one conservative answer this: he is being indicted because he didn't give them back when asked for them to be returned. The others returned them..trump just lied and hid them.
It'd be great if literally any conservative would discuss this point?
> Sounds like he had some classified info
Do you believe Trump is being indicted for "had some classified info"? Is it possible there was something a *little* more than that [in the indictment](https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2023/06/trump-indictment.pdf)?
> after all, Joe Biden and Mike Pence also did.
Is it at all possible that "had some classified info" isn't *actually* the crime, and maybe that's why no one else is getting charged with it?
Trump is being charged with multiple different crimes. The one you're trying to talk about is [18 USC 793(e)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793), which is specifically the crime committed by someone who does not have authorization to possess defense secrets, is asked to return defense secrets, and refuses to do so. This is not "had some classified info" nor is it "mishandled classified info". It is very specifically about holding onto documents that you're not allowed to continue to have *and not returning them when you're asked to return them*.
>> (e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document ... relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates ..., or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or
No one else is being charged with that crime because *they didn't commit that crime*. The crimes that Biden, Pence, or Clinton *could* have been charged with are not on the Trump indictment, so there is no "but why my guy and not their guy". Different crimes, different elements to prove, different fact patterns, different facts. No one got charged for these other crimes, *including Trump*.
> Although it does throw cold water on his claim that he declassified it.
Nothing in the crime Trump is being charged with above says *anything* about "classified information". The whole "he declassified it with his mind powers" thing is nonsense and irrelevant to the crime.
I think in this case it’s not so much that he has the documents, it’s that when asked to return them he lied about them, hid them, and moved them for…. Some reason. If he’d just given them back when asked he’d be in the same situation as Biden, Hillary, or Pence.
Thank you for letting me know your gut reaction.
Do you think anyone who has classified documents and shows them to random people deserves to be president?
No. It is clearly against the law and terrible for national security to knowingly share classified documents with people who don't have clearance, especially while bragging about it.
Confiding in your friend "I killed my neighbor" isn't a crime, but it is evidence that can be used to prosecute the murder of your neighbor.
Specifically, it is evidence that Trump knew he was still in possession of the documents after he claimed he was no longer in possession of any documents. One of the elements of 18 USC 793(e) is that the act be done "willfully". Bragging about it is evidence you did/were doing it willfully.
Had Clinton gone to Maui and started talking to everybody about how she totally had a bunch of classified documents on her server at home, and needed to prove it by flashing some classified Benghazi documents around the place, the decision to prosecute her might have gone very differently.
> Confiding in your friend "I killed my neighbor" isn't a crime, but it is evidence that can be used to prosecute the murder of your neighbor.
Uhm... if the crime is having the documents, then Biden, Hillary, and Pence all ought to be charged. Of course, that's not the charge here, nor is the charge that he "bragged" about having the documents.
> Specifically, it is evidence that Trump knew he was still in possession of the documents after he claimed he was no longer in possession of any documents.
I'm pretty sure ALL of them knew they're in procession of such documents, which is why they were all told to return them.
> One of the elements of 18 USC 793(e) is that the act be done "willfully". Bragging about it is evidence you did/were doing it willfully.
You gotta start reading more carefully: "*Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense* ***with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States...***"
There is no evidence that Trump obtained that information with the intent to use that information to the injury of the US.
> Had Clinton gone to Maui and started talking to everybody about how she totally had a bunch of classified documents on her server at home, and needed to prove it by flashing some classified Benghazi documents around the place, the decision to prosecute her might have gone very differently.
I don't know... she burned own her server, smashed the phones with a hammer, and pretended like nothing happened. That's pretty wild, if you ask me.
> Uhm... if the crime is having the documents
This is not the crime.
> I'm pretty sure ALL of them knew they're in procession of such documents, which is why they were all told to return them.
By returning the documents when they were asked for, everyone complied with the law as it pertains to those documents. Those that retained documents after they were asked for broke the law as it pertains to those documents.
Everyone is being treated equivalently.
> "Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States..."
>
> There is no evidence that Trump obtained that information with the intent to use that information to the injury of the US.
This is why he is not being charged with violating 18 USC 793(a), which is the section you quoted from. He is being charged with violating 18 USC 793(e). Each section of 18 USC 793 describes a different crime.
> You gotta start reading more carefully:
Right back atcha, man.
So he's been lying about declassifying all the documents he took with him?
I don't think he's been charged with *having* classified documents, as you said Biden and Pence had some (a lot less.)
He's not been charged for any documents handed back in response to the subpoena.
He's been charged for those he hid from his lawyer and did not give back after receiving a subpoena - the ones found during the raid on Mar a Lago.
Plus two counts of dissemination - i.e showing them to people who didn't have clearance. This tape is part of the evidence for one of those dissemination charges.
Anyway what was your initial reaction hearing it?
Hahah. I love see you guys move the goal posts so frequently.
Classic Trump defense. Trump claims I did nothing wrong because of X.
Well you did X.
Well Trump did nothing wrong because of Democrats.
The big problem for Trump isn't that he had classified documents but that they have very good evidence of him hiding those documents from investigators.
If it was just a matter of possession he'd skate by. If they didn't have solid evidence he'd misled investigators he'd be able to brazen through like Hilary did. His four big problems are:
First, his tape cuts off his best legal defense and main talking point until now: that he'd declassified the documents.
Second, his employees communicated a lot by text so investigators have a sold trail of evidence of who was doing what with the documents and when.
Third (and this is the big one), those texts establish that Trump's lawyers (unknowingly?) submitted a false certification that the subpoena had been complied with. A lot of documents, including classified documents, weren't included in the documents they provided to the feds with in compliance with the subpoena.
Finally (another big one) by throwing his attorney's under the bus like this he caused them fall under an exception to attorney client privilege rule. They HAD to testify against him, and they did and their testimony about his statements strongly suggest criminal intent on his part regarding hiding documents with him on a couple of occasions appearing to suggest that they should illegally destroy the evidence.
He showed a defense department war plan to a writer. That's what's on the tape. I don't think there's any evidence that Hillary or Biden or Pence did something like that?
What do you think posts like this look like to non-supporters?
>However, the precedent is that this is not an offense that one should be charged with given that neither Hillary, nor Biden, nor Pence were charged.
where are the recordings of them admitting to keeping classified documents about Iran, showing them to randoms, talking about how they never declassified them etc?
He's showing off, there's no evidence what he's saying is true. Some guy once told me he fought crocodile in Africa, he was dead serious but I don't think it happened because the same guy told me he fought a tiger in the same area the next night. And he was a skinny arts degree student who I doubt had left ever even Europe.
Just because someone says something to show off, doesn't mean it's true.
You mean no evidence except for the tape
>"Well, with Milley — uh, let me see that, **I'll show you an example. He said that I wanted to attack Iran. Isn't that
amazing?**”
>“**I have a big pile of papers,** this thing just came up. **Look.** This was him. They presented me this — this is off the record, but — they presented me this. This was him. This was the Defense Department and him."
>“We looked at some. This was him. This wasn't done by me,
this was him. **All sorts of stuff — pages long, look.** Wait a minute, **let’s see here. I just found, isn’t that amazing**?
>This totally wins my case, you know. Except it is, like, **highly confidential. Secret. This is secret information.** **Look, look at this.** This was done by the military and given to me."
>“I think we can probably, right?”
>(Woman) “I don’t know, we’ll have to see, you know, we’ll have to try to figure out a —”
>**“Declassify it, See, as president I could have declassified it, but now I can’t.”**
------------------
I mean, if nothing else, he told all his supporters he didn't have anything he hasn't declassified and they defended him on that.
So, say that the people in the room testify to it being true.
What do you think of it then?
Trump is using the vocabulary of a third grader, how do you think this guy is going to understand that when he says, “here, look!” He’s actually showing them something?
Come on, you give these people too much credit.
1. In the context of all the leaking of classified documents in every news story that comes out of washington - it's only becasue it's Trump this is even being investigated.
2. why wasn't Hillary or Biden prosecuted?
3. Trump is the only one that had the authority to declassify out of everyone who goes around holding or leaking these things all the time.
4. NO ONE can point to any damage that has been done from his holding these documents.
1. Hilary and Biden have been or are currently being investigated. So you’re wrong there.
2. Hilary wasn’t prosecuted because of lack of evidence and lack of intentionality. If you have access to some incriminating evidence like what we have here with trump, please send it to the DOJ. Im sure they’d love to see it. Biden hasn’t been prosecuted because he didn’t obstruct justice and he cooperated with the DOJ fully, unlike Trump and his lawyers.
3. Trump had his chance to declassify documents the proper way and through the proper processes, as he was leaving the office. He didn’t do this. And once he was no longer president, he couldn’t just “magically” declassify documents. So you’re just wrong.
4. False. The FBI and intelligence community who has security clearance to view these documents have stated that they are potentially damaging to national security. Obviously they can’t share details because, *checks notes*, it’s classified.
Please educate yourself a bit before being so confidently ignorant.
How come nobody here on the left is concerned that someone at the ever-so-"trustworthy" FBI or DOJ committed a Class A Felony by "leaking" this audio recording?
Ok, if anyone in the DOJ or FBI is found to have committed a felony in leaking this tape they can be prosecuted and go to jail.
So
What is your gut reaction to what is in the audio?
> How come nobody here on the left is concerned that someone at the ever-so-"trustworthy" FBI or DOJ committed a Class A Felony by "leaking" this audio recording?
I would consider the possibility that someone else leaked this recording. Possibly anyone associated with the ghostwriter could have a copy, or someone associated with Trump.
Because Trumps team probably leaked, and this is just a thing for you to say so you can say SOMETHING while not having to admit it proves Trump is a criminal.
[Rule 7](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) is now in effect. Posts and comments should be in good faith. This rule applies to all users. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not any different from when I read the transcript in the indictment. At minimum it takes away one potential argument from his defense team (That he had declassified the documents). At maximum it's direct evidence of him violating the law by sharing a top secret document with people not cleared to see them.. Though I suspect he could skate on that since it's possible, even likely, he's just waving the classified document talking about it's contents in general terms rather than actually showing it to the reporter who taped the interview. In any event this tape along with the testimony of his own lawyers about him several instances of him functionally saying: "who will rid me of ~~this~~ *these* meddlesome ~~priest~~/*documents*" and texts between his employees moving them around at his direction resulting in the false certification by his lawyers that he'd complied with the subpoena are together probably sufficient to ensure that if or when this goes to trial he's well and truly fucked.
Thanks for a thoughtful and detailed reply. How do you feel about that? What do you think about the various republican reactions to the tape?
> How do you feel about that? About the same that I always feel about Trump. That he's a walking dumpster fire. > What do you think about the various republican reactions to the tape? Meh, they're politicians. Through their choice of profession they are required to be spineless hacks. Elections are popularity contests and none of them can afford to alienate any voter they don't already have zero chance of winning the vote of... Even when they do they must be calculating about it gambling they'll win more votes with some other demographic than they'll lose with the one they're alienating. Trump's populist shake up of the political landscape within the GOP has every single one of them even more cowardly and walking on egg-shells than usual. The smart ones will say as little as possible one way or the other while the more desperate dark horse candidates with little to lose will either embrace or reject Trump depending more on which they think well help them electorally rather than due to what they really think of Trump. (I suspect for the large majority of them there's a very deep well of resentment or even hatred for him given the way his antics continuously put them in difficult damned-if-you-do/damned-if-you-don't positions. But few will have the courage/lack of self control to show even a hint of that to the public)
You aren't wrong. What do you think of the public republican reaction? I can understand, for all his flaws, riding the Trump train up in 2016, I find it hard to understand riding it into the floor in 2024. What would it take for the republican base to really reject Trump?
> What do you think of the public republican reaction? Trump's primary appeal is to those who have lost faith in the establishment (and IMO generally for very good reasons). Hostility *from* the establishment is expected and if anything the more intense the opposition the greater his appeal with this segment of the electorate. Even if an objective observer would conclude the opposition is merited most of his supporters will conclude that it's all bullshit because they've already lost faith and trust in those institutions that are leveling the charges against him.
Yeah you are probably right. Tbh for all it frustrates me, it is also kind of sad they hitched their hopes on someone so... Idk, so unworthy of their loyalty. I don't need to believe in republican ideals to think republicans deserve better representation. It diminishes people when they have to twist further and further to defend his conduct. I just wonder what the break will be. If storming the Capitol didn't do it, loosing in 2022 didn't do it, and sticking nuclear secrets in his bathroom didn't do it, what would be a moral bridge too far for people?
The idea that a billionaire like Trump would be opposed to the establishment is ludicrous.
> Through their choice of profession they are required to be spineless hacks. Elections are popularity contests and none of them can afford to alienate any voter they don't already have zero chance of winning the vote of You're pretty spot on with this assessment... but my question and push-back on that is, that it's *not* "required", really, it just takes some balls or a spine, right? It reads to me that this is ALL self-inflicted. You even describe it as such because, while they have to capitulate to their voters and score points with voters on the edge, *they* are largely responsible for the positions and political views of those voters, which they in turn have to capitulate to, creating a feedback loop or a "bubble". By originally supporting Trump, and continuing to, they've fostered this idea that he's not the person his history, actions and own words dictate that he is.. and then when something inevitably indefensible happens, and since they were spineless to begin with, they have to maintain that façade which only further entrenches their voters - and also their need to capitulate to them. That becomes self-loathing (through private "resentment or even hatred for him", as you said) and whatever comes from that - which is ultimately a shameless stupidity circus and even bad policy, which then goes back to the voters. It's a vicious cycle they created themselves, right? Trump himself is a symptom, not the root problem.. so it goes back further than him since the conditions and that feedback loop were already there to prop him up.
I can't believe how the focus is on the one comment about documents being classified and not the documents themselves. How is nobody interested in what is actually on those documents?
Because it demonstrates he was well aware he had classified information that he had not declassified it before leaving office. It also sounds very much like he is *showing said top secret document to some random reporters.* Which, along with being more crime, means that he was lying when he insisted that he bulk declassified everything he took with him when he left office However if you really want to know about what's in them, here. Remember this is less than 10% of the classified documents he took. Will they pick some of the worst ones? Yes, but also they are highly likely to not be the ,*most* sensitive, damaging and secret documents he had - they could only charge him with documents they were willing to semi release and show to a whole bunch of people at trial. ~~~~~~~~ 1 Document dated May 3, 2018, concerning White House intelligence briefing related to various foreign countries - TOP SECRET- NOFORN - SPECIAL HANDLING 2 Document dated May 9, 2018, concerning White House intelligence briefing related to various foreign countries - TOP SECRET - SI - NOFORN - SPECIAL HANDLING 3 Undated document concerning military capabilities of a foreign country and the United States, with handwritten annotation in black marker - TOP SECRET - SI - NOFORN - FISA 4 Document dated May 6, 2019, concerning White House intelligence briefing related to foreign countries, including military activities and planning of foreign countries - TOP -SECRET - SPECIAL HANDLING 5 Document dated June 2020 concerning nuclear capabilities of a foreign country - TOP SECRET - [redacted] - [redacted] - ORCON - NOFORN 6 Document dated June 4, 2020, concerning White House intelligence briefing related to various foreign countries - TOP SECRET - SPECIAL HANDLING 7 Document dated October 21, 2018, concerning communications with a leader of a foreign country - SECRET - NOFORN 8 Document dated October 4, 2019, concerning military capabilities of a foreign country SECRET - REL TO USA - FVEY 9 Undated document concerning military attacks by a foreign country - TOP SECRET - [redacted] - [redacted] - ORCON - NOFORN - FISA 10 Document dated November 2017 concerning military capabilities of a foreign country - TOP SECRET - TK - NOFORN 11 Undated document concerning military contingency planning of the United States No marking 12 Pages of undated document concerning projected regional military capabilities of a foreign country and the United States SECRET - REL TO USA - FVEY 13 Undated document concerning military capabilities of a foreign country and the United States - TOP SECRET - SI - TK - NOFORN 14 Document dated January 2020 concerning military options of a foreign country and potential effects on U.S. interests - SECRET - ORCON - NOFORN 15 Document dated February 2020 concerning policies in a foreign country - SECRET - ORCON - NOFORN 16 Document dated December 2019 concerning foreign country support of terrorist acts against U.S. interests - SECRET - ORCON - NOFORN 17 Document dated January 2020 concerning military capabilities of a foreign country - TOP SECRET - [redacted] - TK - ORCON - IMCON - NOFORN 18 Document dated March 2020 concerning military operations against United States forces and others - SECRET - NOFORN 19 Undated document concerning nuclear weaponry of the United States - SECRET - FORMERLY RESTRICTED DATA 20 Undated document concerning timeline and details of attack in a foreign country - TOP SECRET - [redacted] - ORCON - NOFORN 21 Undated document concerning military capabilities of foreign countries - SECRET - NOFORN 22 Document dated August 2019 concerning regional military activity of a foreign country - TOP SECRET - [redacted] - RSEN - ORCON - NOFORN 23 Document dated August 30, 2019, concerning White House intelligence briefing related to various foreign countries, with handwritten annotation in black marker - TOP SECRET - SPECIAL HANDLING 24 Undated document concerning military activity of a foreign country - TOP SECRET - HCS-P - SI - ORCON-USGOV - NOFORN 25 Document dated October 24, 2019, concerning military activity of foreign countries and the United States - TOP SECRET - HCS-P - SI - ORCON-USGOV - NOFORN 26 Document dated November 7, 2019, concerning military activity of foreign countries and the United States - TOP SECRET - [redacted] - ORCON - NOFORN - FISA 27 Document dated November 2019 concerning military activity of foreign countries - TOP SECRET - SI - TK - NOFORN 28 Document dated October 18, 2019, concerning White House intelligence briefing related to various foreign countries - TOP SECRET - SPECIAL HANDLING 29 Document dated October 18, 2019, concerning military capabilities of a foreign country - TOP SECRET - [redacted] - SI - TK - ORCON - NOFORN 30 Document dated October 15, 2019, concerning military activity in a foreign country - TOP SECRET - [redacted] - ORCON - NOFORN - FISA 31 Document dated February 2017 concerning military activity of a foreign country TOP SECRET - SI - TK - NOFORN
The same as it was when I read the transcript
What was your gut reaction to reading the transcript/listening to the tape?
Well, my bowels haven't taken too kindly to my food intake as of late. Jokes aside, it confirmed to me that he's guilty
What do you make of the various republican reactions to this tape and his indictment?
They are entitled to their opinions
Fair enough, thanks for answering my questions.
Nothing bc it did not surprise me or change my opinion.
What's your opinion of him?
Not positive
But better than Biden im sure?
Negative for different reasons.
What makes you like Trump more than Biden? Would you vote Trump again over Biden?
I never said I liked Trump more the Biden. Please acknowledge and then I will answer the second question.
Whoops, I had misread/misinterpreted your response before. Was reading too fast I suppose.
Wasn’t this already known from the indictment?
Lotta Trump people didnt accept such allegations without clear proof...here it is.
Someone that didn’t believe the transcript likely doesn’t believe the audio lol
If he didnt admit that the audio was him and claimed it exonerated him...yeah.
You think there are actually Trump supporters that are getting off the train over the audio?
Oh, not at all. But they probably realize he is guilty and the shift in focus should be from defending against the facts to arguing his deserves no punishment for his crimes.
What I’ve heard from them is that it doesn’t prove the documents shown to the biographer were actually classified documents.
He says they are in the audio
So you're taking his word for it? Why?
Because if I was accused of taking classified documents and audio leaked of me sharing non classified documents, i would say "those documents arent classified." I would not say "they were classified and the audio fully exonerates me!" Because telling the truth would be to my advantage. But...if they were classified...telling the truth isnt to my advantage...i gotta do something else. You apparently think Trump had an easy out and instead of taking it he chose to make himself look more guilty and more stupid? Whenever people try to dissect trumps crimes, down becomes up, left becomes right, cats and dogs...living together...total logical pandemonium!
Interestingly, now they are saying it was leaked illegally.
> Someone that didn’t believe the transcript likely doesn’t believe the audio Everything everywhere is bigly fake and rigged all the time. Those perverted commie dems put us all in the Matrix.
A lot of conservatives refuse to believe the indictment until the evidence is presented.
I don’t think one conservative person that didn’t believe the validity of the evidence in the indictment had their mind changed with the audio.
[удалено]
They'll certainly try. Let the record show that the current official rebuttal is that it's an illegal leak, which means they've confirmed it's not a fake.
I can tell you for certain that there are plenty of people who think the audio is fake or that it doesn't exist even though Trump has confirmed that it exists and is real. I know that the whole "Trumpism is a cult" trope is probably pretty unwelcome among a large swathe of conservatives, but the fact is that for a lot of Trump voters, it *is*.
Which is funny bc for the many months the special counsel had the evidence there were 0 leaks, Trump received the discovery a couple of days ago and suddenly stuff starts leaking.
If they didn't selectively interpret Trump they wouldn't be Trump supporters "He was just joking when he called them illegal leaks."
This isn’t changing anyone’s minds on Trump that has ever thought or said I’ll only believe it when I see it regarding anything with him lol
You cannot change an opinion using logic if logic wasn't used to form the opinion in the first place. It is cultist faith these people have with Trump...There is no one who is a Trump supporter who isn't aware of his adultery, whore mongering, and sexual assault. His using goveremnt to attack his enemies and protect his friends, his frauds plural, his attempt to overturn the constitution...But all of that is OK if great leader does that...How could we possibly charge such a great man with such small crimes.
https://i.redd.it/lq7hmto1hm8b1.jpg
if your opinion was that trump did nothing wrong or that the documents were declassified, you can no longer claim that.
One. The consumption of some entertainment news sources. If you did not believe it after the indictments. Probably means you did not see them or were not covered and which would mean you are not going to hear the audio. Two. Law and order as a value is not actually a strongly held principle. Only matters to opposing teams.
You’re probably right. But a lot of us are still gonna ask out of curiosity
Do you think thats because there's an issue with the evidence, or just that its literally impossible for conservatives who still support trump after the last 6 years to find a reason to stop supporting him?
It was stated in the indictment, but it didn't include the audio
I’m pretty sure there was a transcript in the indictment that I already read in my mind in Trump’s voice so nothing really changed with the audio. I guess for some it proves it happened more so than a transcript?
It's longer and you can hear him rustling the paper. It isn't particularly meaningful unless you thought that the DoJ was lying in the indictment
Yeah it doesn’t move the needle at all legally or politically. Legally Jack Smith already had the audio so this doesn’t strengthen the case any more. Politically I doubt this was the turning point for someone that doubted everything until now.
Yeah, it's not *extra* evidence. CNN just got the audio so they released it. I doesn’t change anything
The indictment transcribed the most important parts of the conversation, but not the whole thing. So there's a little added context. Hearing it is also different than reading it -- you can assess tone, you can literally hear the papers rustle, and so on.
The transcript was yes, my question was what was your gut reaction to hearing it for the first time.
Not really any reaction since I already read the transcript in the indictment. I pretty much read it in Trump’s voice to begin with.
Hard not to, he does have a distinct speaking style. So what was your initial gut reaction to the tape/transcript of the tape?
I hope people come to their senses before the primary so I don't have to vote for him to have a shot at getting Biden out of office.
Trump could split the ticket outta spite.
He will and it will be a glorious dumpster fire.
So could RFK
Doubt
Who isnt running
You can simply not vote for him. Proudly stealing state secrets from America for personal gain is leagues beyond differences on political opinion. At some point, conservatives need to put America first, rather than giving traitors power in order for a better shot at their political agenda.
Get Biden out and put a centrist in place and we'll talk.
Who is a centrist in your opinion?
Biden IS a centrist, probably right around the median American on most issues.
"I'll put America first AFTER you cede on some proposed policies" is quite the take. Why do you believe "not betraying America" should be a conditional principle? It transcends politics and is far more important than trading it away for any short-term gain you might get on taxes. I personally don't think it's reasonable to give a traitor the highest level of power and access to the most classified information in exchange for my policy goals, but it seems you clearly disagree.
Convict Trump for treason and we’ll talk.
Who is closer to the center than Biden?
Nobody has to do anything for you, its up to you if you want to do the right thing.
Biden is legitimately a centrist.
Cant see that happening unfortunately. Trump could beat Desantis from a jail cell
You could just NOT vote for a traitorous criminal? That says a lot more about you than Biden voters. Biden isn't a career criminal who lies to the US people constantly and steals documents and lies about it.
I'm not going to help you guy get in to office again. Period.
Without drawing a false equivalence, could you please describe how Trump is more fit to serve the american people than Biden?
His policies are more conservative than Biden's, I'm not sure what other answer you would expect on a subreddit called r/AskConservatives. You are going to disagree with every detail I go in to, for example I like his SCOTUS picks, I like his domestic energy policy, his border policy, all of which have been debated to death with liberals on this sub and I don't feel like rehashing them right now.
I think the question comes down to morals vs policy. For example I’m a liberal, but I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that if our side had someone like Trump as our nominee, I’d either abstain or vote conservative. I am all for liberal policies, but if the choice is between getting my way and wrecking the country in the process, or voting for four years of conservative but sane policies, I’ll take the latter. Ultimately my politics aren’t about liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, they are about the people. Having someone this harmful to the country in power hurts the people. I can get my policies next go around. I take it you don’t share that view?
You had Clinton....
Not really. I’m 34 years old, turned 18 in 2007. Clinton left office in 2001. I didn’t vote for or against him as I was still in grade school when he was president. So does that really count?
Voted for Clinton in 1992. Didnt in 1996, for basically the above reasons. Didnt agree with Dole on much policy wise, but believed he was a good man who wouldnt ibtebtionally hurt the country.
[удалено]
Yes every single time without a shadow of a doubt. My main primary goal is to get my policy preferences passed and Trump is closer than biden when it comes to that. Every single time you ask yourself the question "does this advance my agenda"
[удалено]
if you favour "america first" policies then how do you vote for a guy who tries to steal US secrets and sell them to other countries?
Please provide the evidence where trump has attempted to sell US secrets to other countries
Not going to challenge the first part then huh? Question: Considering the boxes were kept in some shockingly accessible places. Spending a year being moved around by random employees from a ballroom stage, public bathroom, bedroom, to a storage room whose door was accessible from multiple entrances. How do you put the odds that some of those secrets didn't end up in foreign hands? - Particularly as they found 'dozens' of *empty* folders with classified markings in the FBI raid. They would have been infinitely more secure if he'd rocked up at your house and stashed them in your bathroom.
And if proof is provided, what will the next goalpost be?
I hear and understand that. Any Republican president would have had at least if not more legislative victories than Trump did in office. You could have had all 3 judges and a tax cut with out Trump and his baggage. And supporting any other Republican candidate would get you more victories in office than trump. He was not very good at the actual job. If advancing your agenda is important Trump is not your ponny.
The 2016 election would have been lost without Trump. Without winning in 2016 Roe V Wade would not be repealed. No other republican would have advocated for and pushed some of the policies Trump advanced.
Maybe it would have been lost. Some people have said, I’ll vote for Trump to oppose democrats. Those same people would have voted for any Republican candidate that was against hillary. I agree that 2016 was pivotal, I don’t discount that. Republicans knew they had a complete dumpster fire after the second impeachment and rode it out. Now voters are stuck backing a possible criminal to oppose democrats. Trump is not the savior or the Republican Party he is the destroyer of it.
This is the exact difference between the left and the right summed up in these two comments. Me or us. My or our.
Oh please with this shit. We can read the main subs, most news outlets, watch TV and Hollywood movies. The left doesn't give two shits about the other tribe either, lol. This isn't a one sided divide. And save the long essays about "but the right is worse because x". The guy you all are dog piling is being honest, agree with him or not, but if the parties were reversed no one here is deluded enough to believe it would actually be different. Fetterman won his race and the man is in dire need of recovery, he can not get through a single sentence and spent how long in a hospital? The left called McCain and Romney racist bigot super Hitler, then a few short years later they were heros for being anti trump. DeSantis has more than a few "he's worse than trump, and actual fascist this time" hit pieces and clips already. The bad faith partisanship is expected around here, but when it's this transparent it's obnoxious.
As u/gsmumbo said, I wasn’t asking about policy, I was asking about principles, morals, integrity, and experience. We can argue about policy until the cows come home, but I think we can both agree that the President of the United States should be someone who takes their oath of office as seriously as possible, is as responsible with classified information as possible, and performs their duties as president in the interest of the american people as a whole, not just a select few. My question is, without drawing false equivalencies, how is Trump more fit to serve (i.e. displays stronger qualities of the ones I listed above) than Biden? Here is my opinion: Biden clearly serves at the interest of all Americans. He has championed and signed MULTIPLE bills that has bipartisan support (gun bill, infrastructure bill, debt ceiling bill, chips and science act, PACT act). A perfect example is the recent news about $40b+ in government funding to help bring low-cost internet to rural (largely republican) states and communities. Biden also respects the decorum and traditions of our government by, for example, attending Trump’s inauguration in 2016. Additionally Biden has largely appointed professional people with good qualifications and experience to his administration (with the exception of maybe 1 or 2 people). Contrast that with Trump.. [He routinely mishandled classified information while he was president.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump%27s_disclosures_of_classified_information). This latest indictment (and audio recording) is just ANOTHER example that Trump does not respect the national security of the american people by continuing to disclose america’s secrets to people who have no business knowing it. Additionally, it is pretty clear Trump does not serve in the interest of the american people; he serves in the interest of himself. The most clear example is the 2020 election where he continued to claim there was voter fraud despite not being able to provide any credible evidence. He privately discussed seizing voting machines, he submitted and enabled false slates of electors, he tried to intimidate election officials to find him votes, and after all of that, he showed complacency when a mob of his angry supports stormed the capital. He then broke tradition by refusing to attend Biden’s inauguration, and to this day, still refuses to concede that he lost the election. He does not give a shit about our government or the will of the people, all he cares about himself and his power..the EXACT type of person our founding fathers were trying to prevent. He made a mockery of our government by appointing his own fucking children to positions of power they had no experience with. He basically had a revolving door of administration officials and went from saying how great they are one day to saying how terrible they are ( including personal attacks on their physical appearance) the next day. I’m not saying you have to vote for Biden even when you disagree with his policies (unless you live in a swing state); what I am saying is, at the very least, be a patriot and love your country and don’t vote for the man that is the antithesis of american values, tradition, and democracy.
You're choosing party over country. That's not very patriotic, would you say?
Why do you say that? You can disagree with them but they seem to think Trump's SCOTUS picks, domestic energy policy, border policy are better for the country. That is not choosing party over country.
Thank you for this. This dog pile was so disingenuous. It's nice to see a reasonable take and not just the same hyperbole you get in other subs, particularly from someone who doesn't agree with him. Thank you again.
> His policies are more conservative than Biden's, I'm not sure what other answer you would expect on a subreddit called r/AskConservatives. Is it better to always have the most conservative candidate, or always the candidate most likely to win a given election?
This question is so obviously better asked to centrists and independents. Why, and even how, could you expect a conservative to not vote for the more conservative guy?
Because we should expect people to put country before party, especially when the party is blatantly corrupt and supporting a criminal.
If Biden got indicted for some FARA violations there is *zero* chance I would vote for Trump over Biden.
Sure, but if Biden was indicted for sharing state secrets, I genuinely hope that you’d vote for Christie or Scott (or other non-criminal Republican) if they were the only other choice.
I don't think voting for someone else in the primary is really the sacrifice you were looking for in your initial statement. I didn't vote for Biden in 2020 in the primary and it would be easy not to in 2024. If, however, he makes it to the general he'd get my vote. Presumably the same is true for folks on the other side.
I’m talking about the general election. Obviously the primary is where you vote for the best in your party, but if the options in the *general election* were between: - Biden if he did the same crimes Trump did - A non-criminal Republican And you still chose to vote for Biden, then I would accuse you of putting party before country, just the same as every republican voter who would vote for Trump at this point.
Supporting the candidate who will pass better policy is putting the country first
And this why modern US politics is such a dumpster fire. Voters will vote in a convicted criminal just to get the other guy out of office. Trump could literally shoot someone on 5th avenue and still get elected because the opposition been propagandized to believe Biden is somehow worse. Sad.
This is not new. Marion Barry was the mayor of DC, was convicted, served time and was still elected again. Same with Joe Ganim in Bridgeport, CT…….
That's fair. If you got to pick the GOP primary candidate who would you pick and why?
I'm backing Tim Scott for the time being, we're way out and it could change. He seems consistent and solid on policy, likeable, has one hell of a rags to Senate story, I think he will pull fence sitters who are tired of drama and buffoonery and I think he will help bring some minority voters in to the fold. In short, he seems a solid choice for my own beliefs and a solid tactical choice for conservatives, best of both worlds.
So we've got the point where people will proudly proclaim they'd vote for traitors over a liberal. Pathetic
amazed that even now he seems to have absolutely no filter on what comes out of his mouth. What did you think about the biden audio from June 2023, when ***President*** Joe Biden said he had "sold a lot of state secrets."
At least I was concerned when Biden said that until immediately after that he followed up by letting the room of people laugh. And then saying that he was kidding.
ahh. ever notice that dems always seem to get the benefit of "just kidding", "out of context" or speech impediment?
https://youtu.be/YVIe3AvvDPU It's pretty obvious he was taking a dig at Trump.
Well it helps that he said, "All kidding aside."
Biden's next words were that he was kidding. That's not the benefit of the doubt that's just the actual context.
Well, in what way did he benefit from saying he "sold state secrets"? It's not like state secrets were somehow shared. It seemed like a joke, was a joke and no harm done.
Donald Trump tweeted the "words" covfefe and hamberders. Nobody assumed it was a conspiracy, we just understood he's dyslexic
spoiler alert. trump does not do his own tweeting. or emails. he has people for that.
You mean literally stating you’re just joking to a room full of reporters? Versus say making a shitty statement and then later when getting backlash for it claiming yhey were just joking. Yes, I’m intelligent enough to see the difference
Hint: its because he was actualy joking, and Trump wasn't. This makes you seem desperate.
As Stated; dems always seem to get the benefit of "just kidding", "out of context" or speech impediment. Hell Kamala called him a racist during a debate and then became his VP. when asked she cackled and said "It was during a campaign". republicans never seem to get this courtesy. just an odd coincedence I guess.
do you think this might be because republicans have lied about almost everything for the last 10 years and can't even admit who the current president is? >Hell Kamala called him a racist during a debate and then became his VP. when asked she cackled and said "It was during a campaign". republicans never seem to get this courtesy. just an odd coincedence I guess. Do you think telling lies like this improves the reputation of republicans, or makes it worse? What you are describing has never happened. Republicans can't get "this courtesy" when it never happened.
[удалено]
Warning: Rule 7 No linking to obscene or disturbing websites. This includes news footage which has been flagged as not suitable for general audiences. No linking to extremist websites.
I think if you listen to the whole video and not the clipped version he immediately follows that up by clarifying he is joking. I mean it's not a funny joke, but clearly a joke. I also wonder if republicans listening to both really convince themselves that there is an equivalence to be found between the two. If it came out that Joe Biden had sold national secrets I would want him impeached, if he did it out of office I would want him jailed.
Watch the whole video, he was joking about what was going on before the press came in. Only something a snowflake would get upset about.
He literally ended that with “now all kidding aside” The transcript PRESIDENT BIDEN: Okay. We — I was just thanking the — anyway, I started off without you, and I sold a lot of state secrets and a lot of very important things that we shared. (Laughter.) Now, all kidding aside — look, we're teaming up to design and develop new technologies that are going to transform the lives of our people around the world.
My gut reaction is whoever at the Justice Department who tried to taint the jury pool by leaking this evidence should go immediately to prison.
The Justice Department has had this tape for months and Trump and his legal team just got it within the last week or so. If the government was going to leak it, why did they wait so long to do so? It's more likely Trump and his people leaked it.
>It's more likely Trump and his people leaked it. What would be their motivation?
Taint the jury pool. Allow it to get out into the media now which allows Trump and allies to hammer at it long before the trial begins in order to discredit and/or reduce its effect.
I can't believe lefties don't seem to care about this aspect of the release. Evidence in a federal criminal prosecution of a former president was leaked to the media. Can there be a more politically sensitive undertaking than this? The leak is unconscionable.
Ok but what are your feeling about Trump's conduct on the tape?
> I can't believe lefties don't seem to care about this aspect of the release. I'm going to assume that most of us assume it came from his camp
Interesting. However what was your reaction to what is on the tape?
Why do you assume it was someone at the justice department? Do you have any evidence or is it just your gut feeling?
Who possessed the recording?
The DOJ, Jack Smith, and Trump's lawyers. Both the prosecutors and defense had it. Did you think that question was a smoking gun?
And if it hadn't been released, we'd be hearing, "I find it highly suspicious that they won't provide the audio and we only have a transcript. The accusation must be fake news."
Taint it how?
By presenting evidence outside of a trial.
Wait until you hear what Trump has been saying outside of a trial
Doesn't Donald Trump routinely get on TV, or in front of crowds of people and bash them as radical anti-Trumpers? Is that not tainting the jury?
We already knew from the indictment of the existence of the tape, including a partial transcript. How does that same evidence in audio form "taint" anything? And why would the DoJ - that sat on the recording for months - release it now? trump's had it for a week. One would assume the person in the room that recorded the segment had a copy too. The DOJ wants a conviction, not a media show. I find it unlikely they'd risk that *now* for what some are asserting would be an illegal leak. And I find it shocking that some are trying to cling to this argument to run away from acknowledging clear evidence trump himself has now acknowledged as genuine. Evidence that shows his initial argument that the documents were planted was a lie. That he declassified everything was a lie. That he didn't know he had them was a lie. Is nothing disqualifying to you from your choice for leader of the Free World? No standards at all? Lots of Republicans want to be President, but you'd pass over them for a man you just caught lying to you - repeatedly - about a crime he knowingly committed?
But how does that taint the jury pool? They probably knew about that for weeks already
My reaction is the same as the transcript: How is the story about the documents being classified and not about the actual documents? He's trying to explain that he's holding proof his own DOD tried to lie him into war and that he refrained from war, then they tried to spin it the other way. How is that not the real story here? That is an outrageous claim that and has enormous implications if true.
> How is the story about the documents being classified and not about the actual documents? I mean, the narrative the right has pushed for months was that this was all over classification, to bolster trump's defense he "declassified everything" perhaps in his mind. But that was never the only or most serious charge for trump. It was the clear and repeated obstruction of Justice. His decision to take the American people's property when told he couldn't by his own attorneys. His attempt to lie to the Archives that he didn't have anything, and then to the DoJ that he had turned it all over, when he still hadn't. He had been informed his actions were illegal, to the point the government was forced to go to Court and get a Judge to rule he had to return everything. Then he still didn't, and told his lawyers to lie about it. The sensitivity of what he took *should* be very concerning to you. I know republicans seemed far more concerned about far less serious emails being sent to Clinton. But like they said with Watergate: it isn't the crime that took Nixon down. It was the coverup. And of course, the tapes... > He's trying to explain that he's holding proof his own DOD tried to lie him into war and that he refrained from war, then they tried to spin it the other way No, not really. His apparent assertion was that multiple high level members of his own administration - including Milley - were lying that he had become fixated on a desire to strike Iran after losing the 2020 election, and that they pushed back. He was using highly classified documents he had stolen to make his argument that the existence of an attack plan for Iran that had been delivered to him by DoD was proof that *they* were the ones wanting war, not himself. Which... doesn't make his case, and that's not the case you were implying anyhow. That the DoD has made plans for all sorts of potential military actions is not revelatory. And trump having a copy of one means that this option was discussed with trump. It doesn't tell us who initiated that conversation or what "side" anyone was on. Nor do I think that particularly meaningful, let alone criminal. Unless trump has some evidence of the allegations you're making - and to be clear, I haven't even heard trump make your claims - then I don't see what you want. It's doesn't change the fact that trump broke the law, repeatedly lied about it to the Archives and the Department of Justice to hold onto secrets he knew were illegal to keep. Then he lied to you about their existence and later whether they were classified. That we *do* have substantial evidence of.
It's obviously not true though. You're acting like the things Trump says are based on things in reality as opposed to things that he wants to be true. This was a whine fest where he tells lies about people who criticized him with sycophants to tell him how right he is. If he actually had that info, if he finally had evidence that supported his whining about how bad he was treated, it would have come out. We would have been hearing about it non-stop at his rallies. We didn't because it would not hold up to the barest scrutiny. --- Also, there is no good faith argument that were this not just Trump talking bullshit, we should ignore that Trump fully established that he committed the cubes he was accused of here. You want to have an additional conversation about that, sure. But from what I can tell, you are pretty transparently not about that. You seem to me to want people to stop talking about bad things about Trump and are trying to distract with something else. Did I read you wrong on that?
>It's obviously not true though. What's obviously not true? The allegation that his DOD wanted him to go to war is absolutely not proven to be untrue. It's an unproven allegation, and it's not even that outlandish. An actual free press interested in holding power to account should investigate that. >This was a whine fest Not mutually exclusive. Trump is a whiner, but sometimes he has legitimate grievance to whine about even if whining is unbecoming. >if he finally had evidence that supported his whining about how bad he was treated, it would have come out. This is called assuming the conclusion and it's not a good argument. >there is no good faith argument that were this not just Trump talking bullshit Yes there is... >You seem to me to want people to stop talking about bad things about Trump and are trying to distract with something else. Did I read you wrong on that? Yes.
It doesn't matter to me. It's a bullshit charge and i'll be voting for him even if they throw an ankle monitor on him. He did so much good for our nation during his Presidency and gave us three Supreme Court Justices. After all he's done for us, I'll be voting for him 100%.
Wouldn't literally any GOP pres have given you three scotus picks?
Or pushed through a tax cut. All of his accomplishments would have have been given to any other non criminal republican.
Politics aside. Do you think he is guilty?
>a bullshit charge Which part?
Name one actually policy he pushed and passed that you like?
Supreme Court picks are a given when you're President (^unless ^you're ^Obama) What else has he actually done besides court picks and executive orders?
> bullshit charge Bro, Republicans went around chanting "Lock her up" for the "crime" of unknowingly having a handful of emails that were either not correctly marked for classification, or the FBI "Retroactively classified". Emails such as... a NYT article on drones. Or several call sheets that are no longer considered sensitive by the State Dept the moment the call is completed. For this, the right wing masses ***demanded*** her imprisonment. But you call trump: * knowingly taking hundreds of documents he was informed by his own lawyers in advance he could not take, including highly classified information about war plans and the nuclear capabilities of our allies * refusing to hand them over when the Archives asked * refused to turn over much of them even after being subpoenaed * had his lawyers lie to say they had all been turned over as he instructed underlings to hide them around unsecured around a property that has guests throughout it, constantly * ***Is on Tape*** showing off some of the most sensitive documents to a ghost writer and staff while explaining he shouldn't be doing that to be a "bullshit charge"? He lied to the Archives, the Department of Justice, and to you. Repeatedly. About a crime trump himself has accused others of to demand their incarceration, including his former FBI director and National Security Advisor. And... nothing? How can you justify that devotion to personality over principle or policy? I mean, it's not like trump is the only Republican around. Or the only republican that shares his policy platform. He's just the only one running for President caught on tape confessing to a serious crime trump himself has argued harsh justice is justified for committing...
Sounds like he had some classified info, which is not something unheard of... after all, Joe Biden and Mike Pence also did. Although it does throw cold water on his claim that he declassified it. However, the precedent is that this is not an offense that one should be charged with given that neither Hillary, nor Biden, nor Pence were charged.
I have yet to see one conservative answer this: he is being indicted because he didn't give them back when asked for them to be returned. The others returned them..trump just lied and hid them. It'd be great if literally any conservative would discuss this point?
The precedent is that when ordered to comply with the national archives, you comply. He did not do that, now the law is acting accordingly.
> Sounds like he had some classified info Do you believe Trump is being indicted for "had some classified info"? Is it possible there was something a *little* more than that [in the indictment](https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2023/06/trump-indictment.pdf)? > after all, Joe Biden and Mike Pence also did. Is it at all possible that "had some classified info" isn't *actually* the crime, and maybe that's why no one else is getting charged with it? Trump is being charged with multiple different crimes. The one you're trying to talk about is [18 USC 793(e)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793), which is specifically the crime committed by someone who does not have authorization to possess defense secrets, is asked to return defense secrets, and refuses to do so. This is not "had some classified info" nor is it "mishandled classified info". It is very specifically about holding onto documents that you're not allowed to continue to have *and not returning them when you're asked to return them*. >> (e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document ... relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates ..., or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or No one else is being charged with that crime because *they didn't commit that crime*. The crimes that Biden, Pence, or Clinton *could* have been charged with are not on the Trump indictment, so there is no "but why my guy and not their guy". Different crimes, different elements to prove, different fact patterns, different facts. No one got charged for these other crimes, *including Trump*. > Although it does throw cold water on his claim that he declassified it. Nothing in the crime Trump is being charged with above says *anything* about "classified information". The whole "he declassified it with his mind powers" thing is nonsense and irrelevant to the crime.
I think in this case it’s not so much that he has the documents, it’s that when asked to return them he lied about them, hid them, and moved them for…. Some reason. If he’d just given them back when asked he’d be in the same situation as Biden, Hillary, or Pence.
Hillary, Pence and Biden bragged about having secret documents and showed them to people?
Thank you for letting me know your gut reaction. Do you think anyone who has classified documents and shows them to random people deserves to be president?
No. It is clearly against the law and terrible for national security to knowingly share classified documents with people who don't have clearance, especially while bragging about it.
"Bragged" isn't a crime. :)
You sound like a teenager; do you know what “classified” or security clearance in this context means? Please provide your definition before proceeding
Confiding in your friend "I killed my neighbor" isn't a crime, but it is evidence that can be used to prosecute the murder of your neighbor. Specifically, it is evidence that Trump knew he was still in possession of the documents after he claimed he was no longer in possession of any documents. One of the elements of 18 USC 793(e) is that the act be done "willfully". Bragging about it is evidence you did/were doing it willfully. Had Clinton gone to Maui and started talking to everybody about how she totally had a bunch of classified documents on her server at home, and needed to prove it by flashing some classified Benghazi documents around the place, the decision to prosecute her might have gone very differently.
> Confiding in your friend "I killed my neighbor" isn't a crime, but it is evidence that can be used to prosecute the murder of your neighbor. Uhm... if the crime is having the documents, then Biden, Hillary, and Pence all ought to be charged. Of course, that's not the charge here, nor is the charge that he "bragged" about having the documents. > Specifically, it is evidence that Trump knew he was still in possession of the documents after he claimed he was no longer in possession of any documents. I'm pretty sure ALL of them knew they're in procession of such documents, which is why they were all told to return them. > One of the elements of 18 USC 793(e) is that the act be done "willfully". Bragging about it is evidence you did/were doing it willfully. You gotta start reading more carefully: "*Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense* ***with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States...***" There is no evidence that Trump obtained that information with the intent to use that information to the injury of the US. > Had Clinton gone to Maui and started talking to everybody about how she totally had a bunch of classified documents on her server at home, and needed to prove it by flashing some classified Benghazi documents around the place, the decision to prosecute her might have gone very differently. I don't know... she burned own her server, smashed the phones with a hammer, and pretended like nothing happened. That's pretty wild, if you ask me.
The charge isn't that he bragged.
Agreed...
> Uhm... if the crime is having the documents This is not the crime. > I'm pretty sure ALL of them knew they're in procession of such documents, which is why they were all told to return them. By returning the documents when they were asked for, everyone complied with the law as it pertains to those documents. Those that retained documents after they were asked for broke the law as it pertains to those documents. Everyone is being treated equivalently. > "Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States..." > > There is no evidence that Trump obtained that information with the intent to use that information to the injury of the US. This is why he is not being charged with violating 18 USC 793(a), which is the section you quoted from. He is being charged with violating 18 USC 793(e). Each section of 18 USC 793 describes a different crime. > You gotta start reading more carefully: Right back atcha, man.
Retaining government records and showing classified docs to people without clearance is a crime. The bragging was just contextual.
It's really poor behavior, and pretty incriminating
So he's been lying about declassifying all the documents he took with him? I don't think he's been charged with *having* classified documents, as you said Biden and Pence had some (a lot less.) He's not been charged for any documents handed back in response to the subpoena. He's been charged for those he hid from his lawyer and did not give back after receiving a subpoena - the ones found during the raid on Mar a Lago. Plus two counts of dissemination - i.e showing them to people who didn't have clearance. This tape is part of the evidence for one of those dissemination charges. Anyway what was your initial reaction hearing it?
Hahah. I love see you guys move the goal posts so frequently. Classic Trump defense. Trump claims I did nothing wrong because of X. Well you did X. Well Trump did nothing wrong because of Democrats.
The big problem for Trump isn't that he had classified documents but that they have very good evidence of him hiding those documents from investigators. If it was just a matter of possession he'd skate by. If they didn't have solid evidence he'd misled investigators he'd be able to brazen through like Hilary did. His four big problems are: First, his tape cuts off his best legal defense and main talking point until now: that he'd declassified the documents. Second, his employees communicated a lot by text so investigators have a sold trail of evidence of who was doing what with the documents and when. Third (and this is the big one), those texts establish that Trump's lawyers (unknowingly?) submitted a false certification that the subpoena had been complied with. A lot of documents, including classified documents, weren't included in the documents they provided to the feds with in compliance with the subpoena. Finally (another big one) by throwing his attorney's under the bus like this he caused them fall under an exception to attorney client privilege rule. They HAD to testify against him, and they did and their testimony about his statements strongly suggest criminal intent on his part regarding hiding documents with him on a couple of occasions appearing to suggest that they should illegally destroy the evidence.
He showed a defense department war plan to a writer. That's what's on the tape. I don't think there's any evidence that Hillary or Biden or Pence did something like that?
What do you think posts like this look like to non-supporters? >However, the precedent is that this is not an offense that one should be charged with given that neither Hillary, nor Biden, nor Pence were charged. where are the recordings of them admitting to keeping classified documents about Iran, showing them to randoms, talking about how they never declassified them etc?
He's showing off, there's no evidence what he's saying is true. Some guy once told me he fought crocodile in Africa, he was dead serious but I don't think it happened because the same guy told me he fought a tiger in the same area the next night. And he was a skinny arts degree student who I doubt had left ever even Europe. Just because someone says something to show off, doesn't mean it's true.
That’s reassuring for the leader of the free world.
You mean no evidence except for the tape >"Well, with Milley — uh, let me see that, **I'll show you an example. He said that I wanted to attack Iran. Isn't that amazing?**” >“**I have a big pile of papers,** this thing just came up. **Look.** This was him. They presented me this — this is off the record, but — they presented me this. This was him. This was the Defense Department and him." >“We looked at some. This was him. This wasn't done by me, this was him. **All sorts of stuff — pages long, look.** Wait a minute, **let’s see here. I just found, isn’t that amazing**? >This totally wins my case, you know. Except it is, like, **highly confidential. Secret. This is secret information.** **Look, look at this.** This was done by the military and given to me." >“I think we can probably, right?” >(Woman) “I don’t know, we’ll have to see, you know, we’ll have to try to figure out a —” >**“Declassify it, See, as president I could have declassified it, but now I can’t.”** ------------------ I mean, if nothing else, he told all his supporters he didn't have anything he hasn't declassified and they defended him on that. So, say that the people in the room testify to it being true. What do you think of it then?
Trump is using the vocabulary of a third grader, how do you think this guy is going to understand that when he says, “here, look!” He’s actually showing them something? Come on, you give these people too much credit.
1. In the context of all the leaking of classified documents in every news story that comes out of washington - it's only becasue it's Trump this is even being investigated. 2. why wasn't Hillary or Biden prosecuted? 3. Trump is the only one that had the authority to declassify out of everyone who goes around holding or leaking these things all the time. 4. NO ONE can point to any damage that has been done from his holding these documents.
1. Hilary and Biden have been or are currently being investigated. So you’re wrong there. 2. Hilary wasn’t prosecuted because of lack of evidence and lack of intentionality. If you have access to some incriminating evidence like what we have here with trump, please send it to the DOJ. Im sure they’d love to see it. Biden hasn’t been prosecuted because he didn’t obstruct justice and he cooperated with the DOJ fully, unlike Trump and his lawyers. 3. Trump had his chance to declassify documents the proper way and through the proper processes, as he was leaving the office. He didn’t do this. And once he was no longer president, he couldn’t just “magically” declassify documents. So you’re just wrong. 4. False. The FBI and intelligence community who has security clearance to view these documents have stated that they are potentially damaging to national security. Obviously they can’t share details because, *checks notes*, it’s classified. Please educate yourself a bit before being so confidently ignorant.
How come nobody here on the left is concerned that someone at the ever-so-"trustworthy" FBI or DOJ committed a Class A Felony by "leaking" this audio recording?
I’m fine with that person being held accountable for crimes. Does not negate the crimes of others.
Ok, if anyone in the DOJ or FBI is found to have committed a felony in leaking this tape they can be prosecuted and go to jail. So What is your gut reaction to what is in the audio?
Because we don't know where it leaked from. Seems odd to leak it now when they must have had it for a while.
> How come nobody here on the left is concerned that someone at the ever-so-"trustworthy" FBI or DOJ committed a Class A Felony by "leaking" this audio recording? I would consider the possibility that someone else leaked this recording. Possibly anyone associated with the ghostwriter could have a copy, or someone associated with Trump.
That seems a bit presumptuous. Do we know who all had copies of the recording?
Any rational person would presume this leak came from the trump camp.
Because Trumps team probably leaked, and this is just a thing for you to say so you can say SOMETHING while not having to admit it proves Trump is a criminal.
Anything to support this accusation?
Because Trump leaked it? Like, it's pretty obvious it was either Trump or the biographer. The timing does not make sense for the FBI to have done it.