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

[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

 

[superchuck500]

 

[horse2H5]

Chuck, I don't know if you are a criminal or a civil attorney. Have you ever met a prosecutor that didn't think they would win the case? I'm joking a bit, but most I know, though I love them, are always right. lol. To be a good prosecutor I guess you have to be that way and understandably so.

 

[Dragon]

Chuck, I don't know if you are a criminal or a civil attorney. Have you ever met a prosecutor that didn't think they would win the case? I'm joking a bit, but most I know, though I love them, are always right. lol. To be a good prosecutor I guess you have to be that way and understandably so.

I am confident that Chuck has a significantly deeper understanding of law than you do. Have you even read the document? As usual, instead of addressing the facts presented in the report, you resort to attacking the messenger when you cannot dismiss the evidence.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Man they for once did not do a trump suckup. I guess they realized they would be totally in the dirt rep-wise if they did this.

They tried though.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Answers an oft asked question
=======================


Why wasn’t Donald Trump ever charged with the crime of insurrection?

It’s a question that has been looming over the federal prosecution of the president-elect, with his allies and supporters using the fact that he wasn’t to downplay the charges against him as well as the January 6 attack itself.

In his final report on Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, former special counsel Jack Smith revealed that his office “considered” but “ultimately opted against” accusing Trump of committing or enabling an insurrection against the government, fearing the charges would open a minefield of litigation that could derail the entire case.

Smith explains there was just not enough legal groundwork over the last century to properly define “insurrection” and “incitement” to define what happened on January 6, despite judges across the country routinely labeling that — and putting the blame squarely on Trump.

“The office recognized why courts described the attack on the Capitol as an ‘insurrection,’ but it was also aware of the litigation risk that would be presented by employing this long-dormant statute,” Smith explained.

Case law reviewed by his office found that an insurrection “typically involves overthrowing a sitting government, rather than maintaining power, which could pose another challenge to proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Trump’s conduct on January 6 qualified as an insurrection given that he was the sitting president at that time,” the report says.

But the evidence fit, according to Smith.

Evidence showed that violence “was foreseeable” to Trump, and “he caused it, that it was beneficial to his plan to interfere with the certification, and that when it occurred, he made a conscious choice not to stop it and instead to leverage it for more delay,” according to the report.

Smith even believed his office had enough incidence to prove Trump “incited” rioters with his January 6 speech at the Ellipse in Washington, D.C.

But Smith did not find any explicit evidence showing that Trump and his alleged co-conspirators had planned for that to happen, and had instead exploited what his bogus narrative of election fraud had inspired.

And prosecutors could not find any case in which a criminal defendant was charged with insurrection “for acting within the government to maintain power, as opposed to overthrowing it or thwarting it from the outside.”……….

Why didn’t Jack Smith charge Trump with insurrection?

Evidence shows Trump ‘caused and benefited’ from the violent attack. The law and the country weren’t prepared for a case showing how a sitting president, not an outside force, could be responsible, Alex Woodward reports

www.independent.co.uk

 

[MT15]

And the case got derailed anyway. It’s a shameful chapter in US law. Trump should have been brought up on charges shortly after Jan 6. Hell, he should have been impeached Jan 7 to be totally honest.

This country is in deep trouble with the expectations of a fair administration of justice. I mean, money has always talked, but in Trump’s case he just defies the law openly and with open contempt.

 

[Sendai]

And the case got derailed anyway. It’s a shameful chapter in US law. Trump should have been brought up on charges shortly after Jan 6. Hell, he should have been impeached Jan 7 to be totally honest.

This country is in deep trouble with the expectations of a fair administration of justice. I mean, money has always talked, but in Trump’s case he just defies the law openly and with open contempt.

Given the procedures of the House I was impressed with the speed of Houses response. He was formally impeached on the 13th. For the House that is light speed.

 

[MT15]

Given the procedures of the House I was impressed with the speed of Houses response. He was formally impeached on the 13th. For the House that is light speed.

True. It’s a national embarrassment that the Senate failed to convict was how I should have phrased it.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Donald Trump would have been convicted of crimes over his failed attempt to cling to power in 2020 but for his victory in last year’s US presidential election, according to the special counsel who investigated him.

Jack Smith’s report detailing his team’s findings about Trump’s efforts to subvert democracy was released by the justice department early on Tuesday.

After the insurrection at the US Capitol on 6 January 2021, Smith was appointed as special counsel to investigate Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election. His investigation culminated in a detailed report submitted to the attorney general, Merrick Garland.


In it, Smith asserts that he believes the evidence would have been sufficient to convict Trump in a trial if his success in the 2024 election had not made it impossible for the prosecution to continue.

“The department’s view that the constitution prohibits the continued indictment and prosecution of a president is categorical and does not turn on the gravity of the crimes charged, the strength of the government’s proof or the merits of the prosecution, which the office stands fully behind,” Smith writes.

“Indeed, but for Mr Trump’s election and imminent return to the presidency, the office assessed that the admissible evidence was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial.”

Trump was impeached for his role in spurring the January 6 riot, accused by a congressional panel of taking part in a “multi-part conspiracy” and ultimately indicted by justice department on four counts, including “conspiracy to defraud” the US.

Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges.

After the release, Trump, in a post on his Truth Social site, called Smith a “lamebrain prosecutor who was unable to get his case tried before the election”.……

Trump would have been convicted over 2020 election, says special counsel

Report by Jack Smith says evidence ‘was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction’ had Trump not won re-election in 2024

www.theguardian.com

 

[horse2H5]

Donald Trump would have been convicted of crimes over his failed attempt to cling to power in 2020 but for his victory in last year’s US presidential election, according to the special counsel who investigated him.

Jack Smith’s report detailing his team’s findings about Trump’s efforts to subvert democracy was released by the justice department early on Tuesday.

After the insurrection at the US Capitol on 6 January 2021, Smith was appointed as special counsel to investigate Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election. His investigation culminated in a detailed report submitted to the attorney general, Merrick Garland.


In it, Smith asserts that he believes the evidence would have been sufficient to convict Trump in a trial if his success in the 2024 election had not made it impossible for the prosecution to continue.

“The department’s view that the constitution prohibits the continued indictment and prosecution of a president is categorical and does not turn on the gravity of the crimes charged, the strength of the government’s proof or the merits of the prosecution, which the office stands fully behind,” Smith writes.

“Indeed, but for Mr Trump’s election and imminent return to the presidency, the office assessed that the admissible evidence was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial.”

Trump was impeached for his role in spurring the January 6 riot, accused by a congressional panel of taking part in a “multi-part conspiracy” and ultimately indicted by justice department on four counts, including “conspiracy to defraud” the US.

Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges.

After the release, Trump, in a post on his Truth Social site, called Smith a “lamebrain prosecutor who was unable to get his case tried before the election”.……

Trump would have been convicted over 2020 election, says special counsel

Report by Jack Smith says evidence ‘was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction’ had Trump not won re-election in 2024

www.theguardian.com

says every prosecutor ever

 

[Sendai]

True. It’s a national embarrassment that the Senate failed to convict was how I should have phrased it.

Not sure how you convict a private citizen in an impeachment trial. Chief Justice Roberts absence pretty much said it wasn’t constitutionally valid.

 

[MT15]

Not sure how you convict a private citizen in an impeachment trial. Chief Justice Roberts absence pretty much said it wasn’t constitutionally valid.

It didn’t need to happen after the inauguration.

 

[horse2H5]

True. It’s a national embarrassment that the Senate failed to convict was how I should have phrased it.

A good phrase would have been

"the sham didn't work as we were sold"

Reminds me of Charlie Brown and Lucy. Y'all keep falling for it.

 

[RobF]

Not sure how you convict a private citizen in an impeachment trial. Chief Justice Roberts absence pretty much said it wasn’t constitutionally valid.

Obviously moot at this point, but given that one of the consequences is "disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States", it logically should be valid. Speaking generally it wouldn't make sense, or be desirable, for that clause to potentially apply to anyone during their entire term, except not for their last few days when it wouldn't be viable to impeach them before they finish.

 

[Sendai]

True. It’s a national embarrassment that the Senate failed to convict was how I should have phrased it.

Not sure how you convict a private citizen in an impeachment trial. Chief Justice Roberts absence pretty much said it wasn’t constitutionally valid

Obviously moot at this point, but given that one of the consequences is "disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States", it logically should be valid. Speaking generally it wouldn't make sense, or be desirable, for that clause to potentially apply to anyone during their entire term, except not for their last few days when it wouldn't be viable to impeach them before they finish.

offices “of honor, trust, or profit under the United States” are appointed, not elected offices. So basically, an impeached official, can’t be appointed a judge, ambassador, legate, consul, cabinet member, etc., etc. There was a 400+ year history of “offices of profit or trust” in English Parliamentary law and European nations preceding the writing of the constitution and the founders knew well that term of art.

 

[RobF]

Not sure how you convict a private citizen in an impeachment trial. Chief Justice Roberts absence pretty much said it wasn’t constitutionally valid

offices “of honor, trust, or profit under the United States” are appointed, not elected offices. So basically, an impeached official, can’t be appointed a judge, ambassador, legate, consul, cabinet member, etc., etc. There was a 400+ year history of “offices of profit or trust” in English Parliamentary law and European nations preceding the writing of the constitution and the founders knew well that term of art.

As you have a habit of doing, you're misrepresenting debatable contentious points as something firmly resolved.

As discussed at the time here (e.g. https://madaboutpolitics.com/threads/impeachment-round-two.109141/page-22#post-177588, where I said much the same thing as I did above), there is historical precedent of impeachments of people who've left office. You're clearly overstating the significance of Roberts's absence. And there are contentious arguments for whether the Presidency is or isn't an "office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States"; it remains, as far as I know, an academic and not a settled question.

My opinion, and reasoning, remains as outlined above, and back in 2021, as well. Feel free to share your opinion, although it's entirely moot at this point (unless Trump somehow manages to go so far that he manages to get himself impeached again, which would be some doing). But pretending it's fact isn't going to get you anywhere.

 

[Sendai]

As you have a habit of doing, you're misrepresenting debatable contentious points as something firmly resolved.

As discussed at the time here (e.g. https://madaboutpolitics.com/threads/impeachment-round-two.109141/page-22#post-177588, where I said much the same thing as I did above), there is historical precedent of impeachments of people who've left office. You're clearly overstating the significance of Roberts's absence. And there are contentious arguments for whether the Presidency is or isn't an "office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States"; it remains, as far as I know, an academic and not a settled question.

My opinion, and reasoning, remains as outlined above, and back in 2021, as well. Feel free to share your opinion, although it's entirely moot at this point (unless Trump somehow manages to go so far that he manages to get himself impeached again, which would be some doing). But pretending it's fact isn't going to get you anywhere.

Not misrepresenting anything.


“Offices of Profit or Trust” is a fact of history dating back to the 13th century.

Parliament created law the prohibited elected members from holding an “office of profit or trust”. Offices of profit or trust were appointed by executives.

At the writing of the constitution the founders knew the precise meaning and history of this term of art as offices appointed by an executive.

If Roberts believed the impeachment senate trial was legitimate he would have presided.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Answers an oft asked question
=======================


Why wasn’t Donald Trump ever charged with the crime of insurrection?

It’s a question that has been looming over the federal prosecution of the president-elect, with his allies and supporters using the fact that he wasn’t to downplay the charges against him as well as the January 6 attack itself.

In his final report on Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, former special counsel Jack Smith revealed that his office “considered” but “ultimately opted against” accusing Trump of committing or enabling an insurrection against the government, fearing the charges would open a minefield of litigation that could derail the entire case.

Smith explains there was just not enough legal groundwork over the last century to properly define “insurrection” and “incitement” to define what happened on January 6, despite judges across the country routinely labeling that — and putting the blame squarely on Trump.

“The office recognized why courts described the attack on the Capitol as an ‘insurrection,’ but it was also aware of the litigation risk that would be presented by employing this long-dormant statute,” Smith explained.

Case law reviewed by his office found that an insurrection “typically involves overthrowing a sitting government, rather than maintaining power, which could pose another challenge to proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Trump’s conduct on January 6 qualified as an insurrection given that he was the sitting president at that time,” the report says.

But the evidence fit, according to Smith.

Evidence showed that violence “was foreseeable” to Trump, and “he caused it, that it was beneficial to his plan to interfere with the certification, and that when it occurred, he made a conscious choice not to stop it and instead to leverage it for more delay,” according to the report.

Smith even believed his office had enough incidence to prove Trump “incited” rioters with his January 6 speech at the Ellipse in Washington, D.C.

But Smith did not find any explicit evidence showing that Trump and his alleged co-conspirators had planned for that to happen, and had instead exploited what his bogus narrative of election fraud had inspired.

And prosecutors could not find any case in which a criminal defendant was charged with insurrection “for acting within the government to maintain power, as opposed to overthrowing it or thwarting it from the outside.”……….

Why didn’t Jack Smith charge Trump with insurrection?

Evidence shows Trump ‘caused and benefited’ from the violent attack. The law and the country weren’t prepared for a case showing how a sitting president, not an outside force, could be responsible, Alex Woodward reports

www.independent.co.uk

This question was asked a lot, posed here by Farb and SFL with the implication of "No insurrection charge = No big deal"

Is there a reason Jack Smith wouldn't have publicly addressed this early on?

Not that it would have made any difference and not that MAGA would have cared but the explanation would have been nice to hear