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

Thread Attachment browser

Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
    SteveSBrickNJ

    SteveSBrickNJ

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Jan 7, 2022
    Messages
    1,624
    Reaction score
    763
    Age
    62
    Location
    New Jersey
    Offline
    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....
    *
    www.yahoo.com

    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 www.yahoo.com
     
    FullMonte said:
    So, you have now gone from arguing "The AG can appoint a Special Counsel from the pool of 93 U.S. ATTORNEYS" to arguing "Special Counsels simply don't exist."
    Click to expand...
    No. The Special Counsel does not exist as it relates to Counsel outside the United States Attorneys. Congress has not legislated the role of the Special Counsel that the AG may appoint from individuals outside the DOJ without the need for presidential appointment and senate confirmation. The AG is pretty much free to appoint United States Attorneys to any case he desires. They are properly appointed officers. And if the AG so desired he could label them as “Avacados” instead of Special Counsel.
     
    LA - L.A. said:
    Trump violated the Espionage Act by taking, keeping and hiding national security documents that belong only to the US government and obstructed justice to try to hide and perpetuate his crimes.

    Trump betrayed the trust of we the people of the United States and he put our national security at risk because he's a selfish, thuggish criminal.


    Not necessary at all. You trying to wish-cast and speak it to existence, but it ain't happening, bro. The 11th Circuit is going to overturn Cannon and send the case back, possibly with Cannon being removed from the case. The majority of the Heritage Foundation justices aren't going anywhere near the case.
    Click to expand...
    Why would die hard “Originalists” not go anywhere near the case. They live for this.
     
    Sendai said:
    Why would die hard “Originalists” not go anywhere near the case. They live for this.
    Click to expand...
    They are really not originalists though. The thing that they are is “partisan”. They are only originalist when it suits their partisanship. When it doesn’t, they toss it aside.
     
    Sendai said:
    No. The Special Counsel does not exist as it relates to Counsel outside the United States Attorneys. Congress has not legislated the role of the Special Counsel that the AG may appoint from individuals outside the DOJ without the need for presidential appointment and senate confirmation. The AG is pretty much free to appoint United States Attorneys to any case he desires. They are properly appointed officers. And if the AG so desired he could label them as “Avacados” instead of Special Counsel.
    Click to expand...
    So, why did you say "The AG can appoint a Special Counsel from the pool of 93 U.S. ATTORNEYS" when you believe that there is no such thing as a special counsel for the AG to appoint someone to be? Why didn't you say something like "The AG can assign any US attorney to any case, and he can call them whatever they want, but there is no actual title of 'Special Counsel"?
     
    The Heritage Foundation's justices on the Supreme Court know that Trump violated the Espionage Act by taking, keeping and hiding national security documents that belong only to the US government and obstructed justice to try to hide and perpetuate his crimes. They are not going to risk everything they've been working toward for decades just to save Trump's arse again, so they will not hear an appeal and will let the 11th Circuit's ruling stand.

    Why didn't Trump appeal the DC Circuit's ruling that the Special Counsel is constitutional a few years ago? Because Trump knew the Supreme Court wouldn't overturn the DC Circuit's ruling. Clarence Thomas shoehorned his opinion about the Special Counsel into an unrelated decision just to give Cannon cover to dismiss the case and delay Trump's trial until after the election, with the hope that Trump will win. Thomas knows the majority of the justices on the Supreme Court will not overturn established precedent and accepted practice regarding Special Counsels.

    The only way Trump escapes legal justice and accountability for his crimes is if he wins the election.
     
    Richard Lazarus is the Charles Stebbins Fairchild Professor of Law at Harvard Law School.

    The Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Trump v. United States can be fairly — and sharply — criticized for defining the scope of presidential immunity far too broadly. But nothing in the court’s ruling places former president Donald Trump above the law for his alleged criminal acts in trying to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

    In fact, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.’s opinion offers a surprisingly clear road map for the successful felony prosecution of Trump. The case against him is now back before U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan, and she should follow that clear pathway without further delay.

    The central allegation of special counsel Jack Smith’s indictment is that after losing the 2020 election, Trump conspired to overturn it by spreading knowingly false claims of election fraud to obstruct the collecting, counting and certifying of the election results.

    According to the indictment, Trump’s conspiracy included three distinct sets of criminal acts. At most, only one of these three acts is derailed by the Supreme Court’s ruling, leaving plenty of room for Trump’s conviction on multiple felony counts.

    First, Trump spoke on the phone and in person with state and local election officials to pressure them to refuse to certify the valid results of the election in their jurisdictions. Second, Trump incited a mob to attack the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 for the purpose of physically preventing members of Congress from certifying the election results.

    Finally, he improperly put pressure on Vice President Mike Pence, serving in his role as presiding officer of the Senate, to block that chamber from voting to certify the results.

    The chief justice’s opinion leaves little doubt that Chutkan can now validly conclude that Trump is not entitled to any immunity from felony prosecution (even though he was president at the time) for the calls and meetings he held with state and local election officials to persuade them to block the election results. The court ruled that any immunity Trump enjoys, whether absolute or presumptive in nature, is limited to “official acts.”

    There is no immunity for actions that are “unofficial” in nature. The court accordingly invited Chutkan to analyze Trump’s “interactions with a wide variety of state officials and private persons” to determine whether those interactions were official or unofficial in nature.

    But Roberts’s opinion did not hesitate to make clear that Chutkan could legitimately conclude that all these contacts were unofficial in nature. The court carefully pointed out that “this alleged conduct cannot be neatly categorized as falling within a particular Presidential function.”

    The court similarly left little doubt that Chutkan was free to conclude that the speeches Trump made to the general public, including the rally on Jan. 6, which prosecutors alleged were designed to incite the mob that attacked the Capitol, were unofficial in nature and therefore not entitled to any immunity.

    The chief justice expressly acknowledged that there are “contexts in which the President … speaks in an unofficial capacity.” And to drive the point home, he offers an example: “as a candidate for office.” The reference is hardly subtle.

    The court is peremptorily endorsing a finding that, based on Chutkan’s “objective analysis” of “content, form, and context,” Trump’s speeches were those of a “candidate for office” and not entitled to immunity from prosecution……..

     
    Judge Aileen M. Cannon’s surprising dismissal of Donald Trump’s criminal case in Florida could jeopardize not just future special counsels but any federal prosecutor or senior official serving in a temporary position, according to legal experts.


    Justice Department officials share that concern, according to people familiar with the situation who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal conversations. The agency declined to comment.


    Cannon ruled last month that special counsel Jack Smith was unlawfully appointed because he was not confirmed for his position by the Senate, tossing the 40-count indictment against the former president for allegedly keeping classified material after leaving the White House and obstructing government efforts to retrieve it.

    Smith and his team are finalizing their appeal of that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, which is due Tuesday.


    Legal experts say Cannon’s ruling could be used as ammunition for defense lawyers to challenge indictments or directives from any interim official who is not confirmed by Congress, including acting U.S. attorneys or senior Justice Department officials.

    It could be years before the potential consequences of Cannon’s opinion are fully understood.

    “The decision creates risk elsewhere,” Matthew Seligman, a lawyer at Stanford University’s Constitutional Law Center, said in an interview. He argued before Cannon as an outside legal expert at a hearing in the June that the appointment of Smith was constitutional.

    Cannon’s ruling rejected decades of findings by other courts that approved the appointments of special counsels, or similar types of semi-independent prosecutors. She wrote that Congress had not granted the attorney general authority to appoint someone with as much power as Smith without Senate approval……..

     
    GrandAdmiral said:
    The appeal to the 11th Circuit has been filed...

    www.cnn.com

    Justice Department seeks to revive Trump documents case and defends role of special counsel | CNN Politics

    Special counsel Jack Smith is arguing to revive his office’s classified documents case against Donald Trump with a vigorous defense of its authority in the first formal filing since Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the criminal case last month.
    www.cnn.com www.cnn.com
    Click to expand...
    Why doesn’t he just assign a US Attorney. (Sneaks out of the room)
     
    Optimus Prime said:
    Judge Aileen M. Cannon’s surprising dismissal of Donald Trump’s criminal case in Florida could jeopardize not just future special counsels but any federal prosecutor or senior official serving in a temporary position, according to legal experts.


    Justice Department officials share that concern, according to people familiar with the situation who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal conversations. The agency declined to comment.


    Cannon ruled last month that special counsel Jack Smith was unlawfully appointed because he was not confirmed for his position by the Senate, tossing the 40-count indictment against the former president for allegedly keeping classified material after leaving the White House and obstructing government efforts to retrieve it.

    Smith and his team are finalizing their appeal of that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, which is due Tuesday.


    Legal experts say Cannon’s ruling could be used as ammunition for defense lawyers to challenge indictments or directives from any interim official who is not confirmed by Congress, including acting U.S. attorneys or senior Justice Department officials.

    It could be years before the potential consequences of Cannon’s opinion are fully understood.

    “The decision creates risk elsewhere,” Matthew Seligman, a lawyer at Stanford University’s Constitutional Law Center, said in an interview. He argued before Cannon as an outside legal expert at a hearing in the June that the appointment of Smith was constitutional.

    Cannon’s ruling rejected decades of findings by other courts that approved the appointments of special counsels, or similar types of semi-independent prosecutors. She wrote that Congress had not granted the attorney general authority to appoint someone with as much power as Smith without Senate approval……..

    Click to expand...
    This is why Smith and the DOJ are appealing Cannon's ruling. There's a lot more at stake than just the case against Trump. Not appealing it is not an option.
     
    Optimus Prime said:
    Is part of the appeal making cannon justify her ruling? And how exactly she came to make it?
    Click to expand...

    I dont think it matters at this point- the appeal is for the 11th to review and either uphold Cannon's decision or reverse it.

    and im sure @superchuck500 or other board attorneys can clarify....if reversed, wouldn't they give the reasoning for reversal in their final opinion/judgement?

    ( probably wont get into the "how she came to make it" other than to say she was "incorrect" in her ruling )
     
    Optimus Prime said:
    And if the ruling is reversed does the case just go back to Cannon?
    Click to expand...

    It would if they do not remove her ( which i also think is part of the appeal )

    But even if not removed, Judges dont particularly like for their rulings/judgements to be reversed. It makes them look bad. So it may be a "warning shot" ( if you will ) to be more equitable in her decision making.
     
    efil4 said:
    It would if they do not remove her ( which i also think is part of the appeal )

    But even if not removed, Judges dont particularly like for their rulings/judgements to be reversed. It makes them look bad. So it may be a "warning shot" ( if you will ) to be more equitable in her decision making.
    Click to expand...

    Which I doubt she would do. They've already slapped her down twice, and she hasn't received that message.
     

    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!

    Register

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Share this page

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Back
    Top Bottom