Trump Indictment ( includes NY AG and Fed documents case ) (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    SteveSBrickNJ

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Jan 7, 2022
    Messages
    1,446
    Reaction score
    659
    Age
    62
    Location
    New Jersey
    Online
    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? :unsure:
    *
    This 3/31/23 story might get the ball rolling....
    *
     
    Donald Trump is expected next week to ask the federal judge presiding in the criminal case over his retention of classified documents to revoke prosecutors’ access to memos made by his ex-lawyer that became key evidence of his efforts to obstruct the investigation, according to sources familiar with the plans.

    The request will be made before US district judge Aileen Cannon at a sealed hearing Tuesday. The former president last month challenged prosecutors’ access to transcripts of voice memos made by ex-lawyer Evan Corcoran, but what Trump will seek behind closed doors has not been reported.

    Trump’s lawyers are expected to argue that none of the memos should have been given to prosecutors on the crime-fraud exception, which allows prosecutors to see privileged communications between a defendant and a lawyer, if their legal advice was used in furtherance of a crime.

    The sweeping request could have far-reaching consequences since the memos – with, for example, Trump asking whether they could ignore the subpoena, or a later suggestion to “pluck” out some classified documents instead of returning them to the FBI – are the strongest evidence of Trump’s obstructive intent.


    Even if the judge excludes only some of the passages, it could dramatically undercut the strength of the obstruction case.

    In the worst case for prosecutors, their evidence of Trump’s obstructive intent could be reduced to CCTV footage of boxes being moved at Mar-a-Lagoby his co-defendants Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, logs of Trump’s calls with Nauta, and testimony about Nauta’s movements.

    Trump faces a struggle to get Cannon to overturn the initial ruling by the then chief US district judge Beryl Howell in Washington DC. But Cannon has previously ruled for Trump on evidentiary disputes, most recently removing a paragraph in the indictment about Trump waving around a classified map.……

     

    In addition to granting the hearing on the legitimacy of Smith’s office, attorneys representing non-profit groups and former government officials will join the in-person debate Friday, having been allowed by Cannon to file their own arguments on the matter. It is very unusual for outside parties to be given argument time like this, especially in a criminal case at the trial level
     
    I think the gloves should come off here. Probably should have done it from the beginning, but Dems will always give the benefit of the doubt, unlike Rs who just go for the jugular.

     
    Hunter Biden and an array of past prosecutions by DOJ appointed special counsels might like the legitimacy question. If Smith isn’t a legitimate appointment then any DOJ appointed special counsel isn’t legitimate. Effectively wiping out any past convictions by DOJ appointed special counsels.

    Just getting this question before a federal district court judge will likely launch appeals ultimately ending with the Supremes.

    So, Smith is clearly an Officer of the United States.

    Appointments Clause

    “ He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.”

    There currently is no law made by Congress to allow the DOJ to appoint a special counsel.

    Not hard to figure what the Supremes will do
     
    Hunter Biden and an array of past prosecutions by DOJ appointed special counsels might like the legitimacy question. If Smith isn’t a legitimate appointment then any DOJ appointed special counsel isn’t legitimate. Effectively wiping out any past convictions by DOJ appointed special counsels.

    Just getting this question before a federal district court judge will likely launch appeals ultimately ending with the Supremes.

    So, Smith is clearly an Officer of the United States.

    Appointments Clause

    “ He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.”

    There currently is no law made by Congress to allow the DOJ to appoint a special counsel.

    Not hard to figure what the Supremes will do
    So the DOJ will have to prosecute Trump directly. We cannot afford to ignore the lawless actions of Trump, if the rule of law means anything. No one has ever obstructed justice so brazenly, and gotten away with it. His actions are indefensible.
     
    Hunter Biden and an array of past prosecutions by DOJ appointed special counsels might like the legitimacy question. If Smith isn’t a legitimate appointment then any DOJ appointed special counsel isn’t legitimate. Effectively wiping out any past convictions by DOJ appointed special counsels.

    Just getting this question before a federal district court judge will likely launch appeals ultimately ending with the Supremes.

    So, Smith is clearly an Officer of the United States.

    Appointments Clause

    “ He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.”

    There currently is no law made by Congress to allow the DOJ to appoint a special counsel.

    Not hard to figure what the Supremes will do
     
    Which, as your link states, a special counsel is the same as an independent counsel. The independent counsel statute expired in 1999. So apparently Congress understood the Appointments Clause and the need for a law, as the constitution states, to appoint an officer of the United States.
     
    Which, as your link states, a special counsel is the same as an independent counsel. The independent counsel statute expired in 1999. So apparently Congress understood the Appointments Clause and the need for a law, as the constitution states, to appoint an officer of the United States.
    Your assumption perhaps.
     
    I am curious as to how many respond to the judges invitation to participate. Expect some really novel and peculiar concepts.

    Also wonder if any of these random participants will raise that Supreme Court precedent states that presidential papers belong to the president.
     
    Your assumption perhaps.
    A Federal Prosecutor is an officer of the United States. Thus must be appointed. Either the president and senate or by law of Congress. There currently is no law passed by Congress to appoint federal prosecutors.
     
    A Federal Prosecutor is an officer of the United States. Thus must be appointed. Either the president and senate or by law of Congress. There currently is no law passed by Congress to appoint federal prosecutors.
    This is why these guys are no longer called special prosecutors. They changed the name for a reason and the authorization can be found in Title 28. It’s easy to look up. Here is the salient quote:

    “When matters are brought to the attention of the Attorney General that might warrant consideration of appointment of a Special Counsel, the Attorney General may:

    (a) Appoint a Special Counsel;

    (b) Direct that an initial investigation, consisting of such factual inquiry or legal research as the Attorney General deems appropriate, be conducted in order to better inform the decision; or

    (c) Conclude that under the circumstances of the matter, the public interest would not be served by removing the investigation from the normal processes of the Department, and that the appropriate component of the Department should handle the matter. If the Attorney General reaches this conclusion, he or she may direct that appropriate steps be taken to mitigate any conflicts of interest, such as recusal of particular officials.”

    So as much as you want this case to be thrown out, I don’t think it will be. But, if Cannon does throw it out, that may just be a blessing for the cause of justice. DOJ can refile the case from the Florida location. They can even appoint Smith as an AUSA, and just pick up the case.
     
    This is why these guys are no longer called special prosecutors. They changed the name for a reason and the authorization can be found in Title 28. It’s easy to look up. Here is the salient quote:

    “When matters are brought to the attention of the Attorney General that might warrant consideration of appointment of a Special Counsel, the Attorney General may:

    (a) Appoint a Special Counsel;

    (b) Direct that an initial investigation, consisting of such factual inquiry or legal research as the Attorney General deems appropriate, be conducted in order to better inform the decision; or

    (c) Conclude that under the circumstances of the matter, the public interest would not be served by removing the investigation from the normal processes of the Department, and that the appropriate component of the Department should handle the matter. If the Attorney General reaches this conclusion, he or she may direct that appropriate steps be taken to mitigate any conflicts of interest, such as recusal of particular officials.”

    So as much as you want this case to be thrown out, I don’t think it will be. But, if Cannon does throw it out, that may just be a blessing for the cause of justice. DOJ can refile the case from the Florida location. They can even appoint Smith as an AUSA, and just pick up the case.
    I don’t want the case thrown out and it won’t necessarily be thrown out. There is, however, a possible flaw in the process concerning the special council. He’s Federal Prosecutor, an officer of the United States, that wasn’t appointed by the president and the senate or through a law of Congress. So he may be removed as a result. That will certainly muddy the works.
     
    I don’t want the case thrown out and it won’t necessarily be thrown out. There is, however, a possible flaw in the process concerning the special council. He’s Federal Prosecutor, an officer of the United States, that wasn’t appointed by the president and the senate or through a law of Congress. So he may be removed as a result. That will certainly muddy the works.
    Is the following a false statement:
    - The Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters. The Special Counsel is also authorized to refer to the appropriate United States Attorney discrete prosecutions that may arise from the Special Counsel's investigation.

    (e) Sections 600.4 to 600.10 of title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations are applicable to the Special Counsel.
    Does Jack Smith taking the Oath of Office satisfy this stupid claim?
    SUBJECT: Oath of Office, John L. Smith

    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This memorandum serves as record that an appointment affidavit (SF 61) has been signed and executed for the appointment of John L. Smith, Special Counsel. On November 18, 2022, John L. Smith was appointed by Attorney General Merrick B. Garland to serve as the Special Counsel by Order No. 5559-2022.

    DISCUSSION: Mr. Smith signed an SF 61 on November 20, 2022. Upon reviewing documentation, it was discovered that a witness signature was missing (more than likely as Mr. Smith was on boarded while overseas). JMD/Human Resources consulted with the JMD/Office of General Counsel (OGC) to ensure proper corrective action. OGC’s recommendation and advice was to read minister the oath of office and execute a new SF 61 to ensure procedural compliance.

    Attachments

    A. Attorney General Order 5559-2022

    B. SF 61, signed and executed on 9/14/2023

    C. SF 61, signed on 11/20/2022

    The regulation governing the Special Counsel: CFR Title 28 Part 600
     
    Last edited:
    I don’t want the case thrown out and it won’t necessarily be thrown out. There is, however, a possible flaw in the process concerning the special council. He’s Federal Prosecutor, an officer of the United States, that wasn’t appointed by the president and the senate or through a law of Congress. So he may be removed as a result. That will certainly muddy the works.
    What would prevent his appointment as a Special Assistant US Prosecutor in the FL region? How would that muddy the works, more than they’ve already been muddied by Cannon’s incompetence (and that is giving her the benefit of the doubt that I’m not sure she deserves)?
     
    Last edited:
    Also wonder if any of these random participants will raise that Supreme Court precedent states that presidential papers belong to the president.
    Please cite the Supreme Court cases in which it was ruled that national security documents are presidential papers that belong to the president. I don't want someone saying the Supreme Court said that. I want to know the case citations where the Supreme Court said that.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom