Trump Indictment ( includes NY AG and Fed documents case ) (4 Viewers)

[SteveSBrickNJ]

Former President D. Trump has been indicted by a New York Grand Jury. There will be much to talk about on this topic because this is just the first step in a lengthy process.
Possibly it is worthy of its own thread here rather than posting about Trump's indictment in already existing threads?
*
This 3/31/23 story might get the ball rolling....
*

Manhattan’s DA wanted a Friday Trump arrest. Trump’s team said no.

Secret Service needed more time to prepare, according to the ex-president’s legal team.

www.yahoo.com

 

[MT15]

I was going to say the same thing. He dares them to take steps to restore order so he can use that as a way to show how unfairly he is being treated.

And it’s working. He’s getting away with everything he’s tried, so far. Judges and courts are reluctant to treat him as an ordinary defendant would be treated, which causes normal people to lose respect for the justice system.

I just now read he has posted a picture of Judge Mershon’s daughter now. He has targeted her every day since the gag order took effect. Anyone else would be in jail - he is out on bail, for cripe’s sake.

 

[DaveXA]

And it’s working. He’s getting away with everything he’s tried, so far. Judges and courts are reluctant to treat him as an ordinary defendant would be treated, which causes normal people to lose respect for the justice system.

I just now read he has posted a picture of Judge Mershon’s daughter now. He has targeted her every day since the gag order took effect. Anyone else would be in jail - he is out on bail, for cripe’s sake.

He's literally challenging the judges to put him in prison. He wants that to happen because he thinks people will give him more money and rally to the cause.

It's lousy reasoning, but I guess it works in that messed up mind of his.

 

[MT15]

He's literally challenging the judges to put him in prison. He wants that to happen because he thinks people will give him more money and rally to the cause.

It's lousy reasoning, but I guess it works in that messed up mind of his.

And so far it is working. It’s frustrating to see him treated with deference that no other defendant would get. I don’t know what the answer is, but damn, I am tired of seeing him do this crap.

 

[MT15]

Trump got his bond, this comes from Forbes, forgot to save the link.

“The bond was provided by California-based company Knight Insurance. Trump’s collateral to secure the loans was a combination of cash and investment-grade bonds, according to Don Hankey, the chairman of Knight Insurance.

Hankey told Forbes that his company had initiated the deal, reaching out to Trump just a few days before an appeals court lowered the amount Trump would have to pay while his appeal was heard. “This is what we do at Knight insurance,” Hankey said. “I’d never met Donald Trump. I’d never talked to him on the phone. I heard that he needed a loan or a bond, and this is what we do. So, we reached out, and he responded.” The deal, Hankey said, came together in just a few days.

Hankey said that he has supported Trump’s political campaigns in the past.

Hankey, a billionaire who presides over an auto-services empire, may never have met Trump, but he was the largest individual owner of Axos Financial, the lender that bailed out Trump by refinancing his mortgages at Trump Tower and his Miami resort in 2022. Axos also previously had done business with the family of Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law”

So we’re supposed to believe that this billionaire Trump supporter, who was majority owner of the company that refinanced Trump Tower and Mar-a-Lago (edit: Doral?) just 2 years ago, has never spoken to Trump? Oh, and has also done business with Kushner’s family as well? Doesn’t really ring true to me.

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

before its over he'll be complaing about how Trump screwed him over and act like he never saw any warning signs..lol

 

[fooferdoggie]

before its over he'll be complaing about how Trump screwed him over and act like he never saw any warning signs..lol

I hope he has to eat all of those loans.

 

[Optimus Prime]

.............Angering a judge overseeing your case seems like bad strategy, but given Trump's laser-like focus on stopping a jury from hearing the evidence against him, his actions make a rough sort of sense. There's a chance that it will take longer to seat a jury and go through the trial, with so many people involved worried for their safety.

No doubt Trump is also aware that bomb threats or other MAGA terrorist actions could be disruptive enough to bring the trial to a halt. Luckily, his followers so far have mostly been too worried about their own safety to try something stupid.

Even better, by making jurors see him as a threat to their safety, Trump has done more to turn them against him than all the pre-trial publicity ever could.

Unlike his civil trials, where his physical participation was not required, Trump will have to be in court for most, if not all, of this trial. If past is predicate, this will probably be very bad for the defense. Trump's narcissistic self-regard made him believe that the jury would be impressed by his presence in the second civil trial over his sexual abuse and defamation of journalist E. Jean Carroll.

So he showed up regularly, throwing fits and making stink faces and, if rumors are true, wafting his signature butt-and-ketchup smell over the courtroom. The result was Carroll being awarded $83 million, which is $78 million more than was awared by the jury which never had to see Trump in person. Since he's so focused on disrupting the proceedings, we can expect more of the same at this criminal trial. And it's likely to infuriate the jury.

Not that he has the attention span, but Trump would be wise to watch the recent documentary "The Truth vs. Alex Jones," about the two successful defamation lawsuits filed against the Infowars host by the parents of Sandy Hook victims. In real time, I closely followed these cases addressing Jones' repeated defamtion of these parents by accusing them, falsely, of fabricating or lying about their children's murders.

But even for me, the documentary was riveting — especially in the courtroom — for one big reason: You can see the jurors' faces when they are in the presence of Jones. It's quite the trip, watching these people grow increasingly disgusted with Jones, with his bombastic lying, to the point where some looked physically ill as he kept talking.

Trump and Jones are basically the same person: Sociopathic con artists who have a huge following with cruel people. It causes them to forget that most people find them repulsive. If anything, Trump is much worse, especially in the ego department, given as he regularly compares himself to a literal god, which even Jones largely has the sense to avoid.

Add to it that Trump's lawyers, who get paid from his campaign accounts, know better than to interfere with Trump's antics, which may play poorly in court but perform well as a fundraising tactic. So there's every reason to believe this trial could go haywire.

As long as Trump can't leverage the chaos to halt the proceedings, however, it's likely to backfire on him...............

MSN

www.msn.com

 

[DaveXA]

.............Angering a judge overseeing your case seems like bad strategy, but given Trump's laser-like focus on stopping a jury from hearing the evidence against him, his actions make a rough sort of sense. There's a chance that it will take longer to seat a jury and go through the trial, with so many people involved worried for their safety.

No doubt Trump is also aware that bomb threats or other MAGA terrorist actions could be disruptive enough to bring the trial to a halt. Luckily, his followers so far have mostly been too worried about their own safety to try something stupid.

Even better, by making jurors see him as a threat to their safety, Trump has done more to turn them against him than all the pre-trial publicity ever could.

Unlike his civil trials, where his physical participation was not required, Trump will have to be in court for most, if not all, of this trial. If past is predicate, this will probably be very bad for the defense. Trump's narcissistic self-regard made him believe that the jury would be impressed by his presence in the second civil trial over his sexual abuse and defamation of journalist E. Jean Carroll.

So he showed up regularly, throwing fits and making stink faces and, if rumors are true, wafting his signature butt-and-ketchup smell over the courtroom. The result was Carroll being awarded $83 million, which is $78 million more than was awared by the jury which never had to see Trump in person. Since he's so focused on disrupting the proceedings, we can expect more of the same at this criminal trial. And it's likely to infuriate the jury.

Not that he has the attention span, but Trump would be wise to watch the recent documentary "The Truth vs. Alex Jones," about the two successful defamation lawsuits filed against the Infowars host by the parents of Sandy Hook victims. In real time, I closely followed these cases addressing Jones' repeated defamtion of these parents by accusing them, falsely, of fabricating or lying about their children's murders.

But even for me, the documentary was riveting — especially in the courtroom — for one big reason: You can see the jurors' faces when they are in the presence of Jones. It's quite the trip, watching these people grow increasingly disgusted with Jones, with his bombastic lying, to the point where some looked physically ill as he kept talking.

Trump and Jones are basically the same person: Sociopathic con artists who have a huge following with cruel people. It causes them to forget that most people find them repulsive. If anything, Trump is much worse, especially in the ego department, given as he regularly compares himself to a literal god, which even Jones largely has the sense to avoid.

Add to it that Trump's lawyers, who get paid from his campaign accounts, know better than to interfere with Trump's antics, which may play poorly in court but perform well as a fundraising tactic. So there's every reason to believe this trial could go haywire.

As long as Trump can't leverage the chaos to halt the proceedings, however, it's likely to backfire on him...............

MSN

www.msn.com

Yet, for all the talk of him doing these questionable at best things, nothing truly consequential has happened to him. And if nothing does happen between now and the election, a lot of people are going to wonder if all of this is a waste of time and money.

Until something consequential happens, I ain't holding my breath.

 

[MT15]

Cannon was trying to set up invalid jury instructions, and then she could dismiss the case after jury was seated, thus sinking the case because of double jeopardy. (If I’m remembering what I read correctly).

 

[Optimus Prime]

Special counsel Jack Smith warned the judge overseeing Donald Trump’s classified documents case that she is pursuing a legal premise that “is wrong” and said he would probably appeal to a higher court if she rules that a federal records law can protect the former president from prosecution.


In a late-night legal filing Tuesday, Smith’s office pushed back hard against an unusual instruction from U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon — one that veteran national security lawyers and former judges have said badly misinterprets the Presidential Records Act and laws related to classified documents.


Smith’s filing represents the most stark and high-stakes confrontation yet between the judge and the prosecutor, illustrating the extent to which a ruling by Cannon that legitimizes the PRA as a defense could eviscerate the historic case, one of four Trump is facing as he again runs for president.

The special counsel repeatedly said that he probably would appeal such a ruling, potentially delaying the classified documents trial well beyond November’s presidential election…….

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/04/03/trump-documents-case-cannon-jack-smith/

 

[SFIDC3]

Special counsel Jack Smith warned the judge overseeing Donald Trump’s classified documents case that she is pursuing a legal premise that “is wrong” and said he would probably appeal to a higher court if she rules that a federal records law can protect the former president from prosecution.


In a late-night legal filing Tuesday, Smith’s office pushed back hard against an unusual instruction from U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon — one that veteran national security lawyers and former judges have said badly misinterprets the Presidential Records Act and laws related to classified documents.


Smith’s filing represents the most stark and high-stakes confrontation yet between the judge and the prosecutor, illustrating the extent to which a ruling by Cannon that legitimizes the PRA as a defense could eviscerate the historic case, one of four Trump is facing as he again runs for president.

The special counsel repeatedly said that he probably would appeal such a ruling, potentially delaying the classified documents trial well beyond November’s presidential election…….

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/04/03/trump-documents-case-cannon-jack-smith/

Would love Chuck's take on above.....

 

[Optimus Prime]

........“Deranged ‘Special’ Counsel Jack Smith, who has a long record of failure as a prosecutor, including a unanimous decision against him in the U.S. Supreme Court, should be sanctioned or censured for the way he is attacking a highly respected Judge, Aileen Cannon, who is presiding over his FAKE Documents Hoax case in Florida,” Trump wrote on Truth Social Thursday morning.

“He is a lowlife who is nasty, rude, and condescending, and obviously trying to ‘play the ref,’” Trump claimed. “He shouldn’t even be allowed to participate in this sham case, where I, unlike Crooked Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and all the rest, come under the Presidential Records Act. I DID NOTHING WRONG, BUT BIDEN DID, AND THEY LET HIM OFF SCOT-FREE. HOW DID THAT HAPPEN, JACK? A TWO TIERED SYSTEM OF JUSTICE. ELECTION INTERFERENCE!”

Legal experts widely say Smith is likely to prevail on appeal if Cannon rules against him and some even think the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals may remove her from the case after previously shooting down two of her rulings. But while Cannon has come under fire for potentially aiding Trump by delaying the trial, CNN legal analyst Elie Honig warned that if Smith moves to remove Cannon, it "will delay this more than anything that’s happened so far."............

MSN

www.msn.com

Trump melts down on Truth Social over Jack Smith “attacking” Judge Aileen Cannon | Salon.com

Award-winning news and culture, features breaking news, in-depth reporting and criticism on politics, science, food and entertainment.

www.salon.com

 

[DaveXA]

Would love Chuck's take on above.....

@superchuck500

 

[coldseat]

CNN legal analyst Elie Honig warned that if Smith moves to remove Cannon, it "will delay this more than anything that’s happened so far."............

At this point, it's worth the delay. There's no point in pretending that Cannon is going to fairly or professionally adjudicate this case any longer. This case is not going to make it trial before the election regardless. Go ahead and file to remove her so that we can at least get back on track with the fair administration of justice the courts are supposed to provide.

 

[LA - L.A.]

At this point, it's worth the delay. There's no point in pretending that Cannon is going to fairly or professionally adjudicate this case any longer. This case is not going to make it trial before the election regardless. Go ahead and file to remove her so that we can at least get back on track with the fair administration of justice the courts are supposed to provide.

I see it the same way.

With Cannon presiding, the case probably ends up dismissed by her, but it's never going to trial before the election with Cannon presiding. So it's best for the prosecution to do what's best for their case.

I don't think a verdict of guilty before election day would have an impact on who wins or loses the election, so I think that's irrelevant.

The only way any guilty verdict is going to stick to Trump is if Biden wins, because even a third party victor would pardon Trump. I have no doubt the Supreme Court would allow Trump to pardon himself or to step down momentarily for his VP to pardon him as the acting president.

If Biden wins the election, all of the federal cases against Trump continue.

 

[MT15]

Cannon seems hell bent on getting Trump acquitted or getting this case thrown out. And it’s an open and shut case. I’m sick about this. It’s corruption in plain sight and seemingly nothing can be done. Our whole justice system is crooked.

 

[superchuck500]

Would love Chuck's take on above.....

So basically in March the parties are moving forward in a pre-trial posture and Trump has moved to dismiss the charges and advanced an interest in a jury charge on his stated defense that the PRA "personal records" distinction allows him to take personal records regardless of whether those records are also covered by the Espionage Act's records handling provisions. Then DOJ responds saying that theory has no basis in law and is non-sensical under the terms/purpose of the Espionage Act - and it's without basis in fact because there's no evidence that Trump ever deemed or considered them personal records within the meaning of the PRA.

After an exchange, Cannon instructs the parties to consider two formulations of such a jury charge, both of which rest on the foundation that it would indeed be possible as a matter of law for a president to avoid the coverage of the Espionage Act's records handling provisions by simply designating the records as personal records. Cannon asks for a response to this request in two weeks.

So in the filing referenced in the article, Smith is basically saying that both of the proposed jury charges are clearly erroneous as a matter of law - and while judges have discretion on handling jury charges as to questions of fact that require a trial and jury on, issues of law must be resolved before trial where a jury charge's erroneous legal foundation can prejudice the entire issue. Smith goes on to note that there's no factual basis for the position anyway, but as a matter of law, the proposed jury charges are entirely flawed in their foundation.

Smith also energetically asks Cannon to rule on this question as soon as possible because the scenario presents one of the few grounds upon which a party may seek mandamus from the appellate court. (Note that the article refers to Smith's claim that he will 'appeal' the issue but that is inaccurate terminology - at this posture in the case, appeals are extraordinary because they would be "interlocutory" or before the final disposition of the case. What is instead at issue here is whether Smith could seek mandamus, which is a different device that allows for a higher court to issue an direct instruction to an official, the judge in this case, to perform in some way that the court believes is required and the official, Judge Cannon here, is not performing . . . in a practical sense it is similar to an appeal but mechanically they are different and while mandamus is rare and can only happen in certain contexts, Smith provides authority from both the 5th and 2nd circuits that mandamus is available when a judge insists on jury charges that are contrary to law).

In Cannon's order yesterday denying Trump's motion to dismiss, she also took offense at DOJ's request that she promptly decide the jury charge issue, calling the request "unprecedented and unjust". I question how a judge with such little experience as she has both on the bench and as an attorney can say that something is unprecedented - especially when the pleading cited circuit level authority for the proposition. But she still has not ruled and signals no intention to do so anytime soon . . . which makes it difficult for Smith to take it to the 11th Circuit because his position would be based only on speculation about what she's going to do. On the other hand, waiting until she rules or it gets sufficiently close to trial that not ruling is effectively the same as ruling, he could take it then, but that has obvious schedule implications.

I think its pretty clear that she is slow playing the case so that Trump at least gets the chance to win the election and then see what happens from there. The problem for Smith is that such a timeline isn't patently erroneous or unheard of, trial judges have substantial discretion with scheduling and while this is a slow burn, it's nothing totally out of the ordinary. The election is a practical consideration and certainly a big issue for the prosecution, but there's nothing plainly in the law about having to ensure the trial happens before that highly meaningful yet arbitrary and unrelated date.

The bottom line here is she's using the discretion trial judges have. The possibility of an imposed recusal remains remote. And Trump drawing her to preside over this trial was a massive bit of luck for him, and highly detrimental to the government's case. More broadly, it continues to be that she has no business ever being in this position in the first place and it is shameful that the Senate (especially the Democrats) confirmed her.

 

[MT15]

This is a good thread, I think:







I’ve only posted the first few tweets. He thinks Smith’s next move will be this:

“Therefore, I agree with @BradMossEsq et al saying that Jack’s next move seems to be a motion in limine (before trial) demanding that Cannon bar Trump from arguing that the PRA can confer authority to possess classified docs. Frustrating, but I think that’s his best bet.”