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

 

[UriUT]

Trump getting "indoctrinated"? What? "Inner voice"? Federal agent? Was he a mailman?

That opposite attracts law doesn't seem to be true. Stupid indeed attracts stupid.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Do you think Trump failed to turn over classified information that he illegally had in his possession, after being given opportunities to comply? If you don't, you don't understand the case against him. If you do, what the hell is the discussion really about?

Well, that is what he was accused of. I wasn't there to witness it. I'll wait for the evidence, if that's OK with you.

Clinton was also accused of it. Comey said she did it as a fact in his statement about why he was not recommending prosecution.

 

[Snarky Sack]

The allegations against Trump have nothing to do with storing or destroying. So, that part is not the same.

Destroying no. I said that part wasn't the same. Trump is not accused of incorrectly storing classified information? I thought he was.

That leaves us with withholding. However, it has nothing to do with “classified information” and everything to do with “defense information.”

These goalposts must no be on wheels, they must be on some kind of rocket powered sled.

Now, if you want to say they are the same, I’ll ask for this:
—Examples of Hillary directing someone to move the classified information on her server to a spot where she could access it, but investigators couldn’t find it.

From the New York Times:

WASHINGTON — On a Friday morning in June 2011, after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had waited more than 12 hours for a set of talking points to be sent to her, a top aide told her the delay was because staff members were having problems sending faxes that would be secure from probing eyes.

“If they can’t, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure,” Mrs. Clinton responded in an email released early Friday by the State Department, one of about 3,000 newly released pages of Mrs. Clinton’s emails during her time as secretary of state. Of those, 66 documents contained classified information.

The note she sent to the top aide, Jacob J. Sullivan, instructing him how to strip sensitive material of official markings and send it in a “nonsecure” way is heavily redacted, so it is unknown what the talking points were about.

—Examples of Hillary directing her legal team to lie and say she did not have materials that she knew she had.

Keep in mind that this one is an anti-Trump story:

Trump Privately Applauded Hillary Clinton’s Lawyer for Deleting Her Emails

He seemed to imply to his attorneys that they ought to be as “great” as Hillary’s lawyer.

newrepublic.com

Clinton's lawyer deleted 30,000 emails that were under subpoena. Trump praised the lawyer for it. Another example of the similarities between Trump and Clinton when it comes to responding the demands for return of documents.

—Examples of Hillary directing her lawyers to hide or destroy evidence that they found.

This CNN lady didn't know this either, so you're in good company:

CNN anchor Brooke Baldwin was in disbelief when she learned that Hillary Clinton’s aides destroyed her phones with a hammer.

When Boris Epshteyn, an adviser to Donald Trump, told her on air that the Democratic nominee’s aides destroyed her BlackBerries with hammers, Baldwin interrupted him to ask a reporter to fact-check that statement.

“Evan, hold on, can you fact-check?” Baldwin asked reporter Evan Perez on “CNN Newsroom” on Friday. “Evan Perez? Hammers? Fact-check that for me, on the fly.”

“Yes they did, Brooke.” Perez responded. “As he mentioned, there were 13 mobile devices and 5 iPads that the FBI said that in some way were used with her private email server, and they did in some cases just destroy them with hammers when they were done using them.”

Watch CNN anchor’s disbelief that Clinton aides destroyed phones with hammer

Brooke Baldwin asked for an on-the-fly fact-check.

thehill.com

If you need more evidence of destruction of evidence, just google "server bleachbit."

 

[UriUT]

Aileen Cannon’s Previous Rulings About Trump Demand Her Recusal

Ultimately, Judge Cannon should do the ethical thing and recuse herself. If she chooses not to, she should be removed.

slate.com

Arguments for Cannon's recusal.

First, it is common knowledge that Judge Cannon already took the deeply erroneous step of ordering federal prosecutors to refrain from using the materials seized from Mar-a-Lago in their investigation when she appointed a special master to review whether these materials were subject to executive or attorney-client privilege. The charges here are the direct result of the investigation her order temporarily halted.

Second, Judge Cannon’s other statements and actions in the prior proceedings made clear her view that Trump is entitled to differential treatment than any other criminal defendant. She wrote that “as a function of Plaintiff’s former position as President of the United States, the stigma associated with the subject seizure is in a league of its own.”

Third, federal courts have explained in related contexts that prior reversals of a judge’s decisions in a case can support the conclusions that the judge “would have difficulty putting [her] previous views and findings aside,” and that another judge taking the case would be “appropriate to preserve the appearance of justice.”

To be clear, our concern is not that Judge Cannon is a Trump appointee. The conflict of interest is that she has already issued unusual and profoundly wrong decisions favoring the defendant in this case that have been severely criticized and overturned, again by conservative or Trump-appointed judges.

 

[samiam5211]

Well, that is what he was accused of. I wasn't there to witness it. I'll wait for the evidence, if that's OK with you.

The indictment contains a great deal of evidence. You don't have to wait for anything, you can just read the indictment.

 

[superchuck500]

I agree that Trump supporters should not be too upset. This election interference gambit will not succeed. I'll explain my reasons for saying so:

1) It's only getting started.

Democrats think this is the end, the long awaited indictment. An indictment is only the end of the beginning. So far this whole investigation has been like a chess game in which White not only gets the first move, but the first twenty moves. Or more aptly, as many moves as they take to get Black in check. The "check" being the indictment. Now Black gets to finally make moves.

They will have discovery, so they can see what the DOJ has. They will be able to speak in court and that will have to be reported.

2) We don't know what is real and what is fake.

We've seen no real information, just one-sided leaks, often to CNN exclusively. Don't believe me? Google "cnn exclusive." The leaks are selective and the reporting by CNN is spun, so we have no way of knowing what it true and not true. Once people have to start testifying under oath, or making statements to the courts as lawyers, truth will be more important. They will be more careful in making outlandish claims.

3) There is not enough time to get a conviction before the election.

The DOJ had all the moves and it still took almost ten months from the Mar-a-Lago raid to the indictment. Things like this eat up time, even when only one side has the metaphorical ball. Now comes discovery, which in a way will be the reverse of the negotiations prior to the raid. It will be Team Trump asking for documents, and the DOJ providing them slowly, incompletely, and at first so redacted that defense has to ask the judge over and over to require the real documents be turned over. That alone could delay the trial until after the 2025 inauguration, after which, Trump will simply pardon himself to the roar of the crowd.

That would be the DOJ delaying the trial, but they will do that because their interest in protecting themselves will have to outweigh their interest in a speedy trial for Trump. They will not sacrifice themselves. Maybe they will avoid any other delays from their side.

But Team Trump will surely be under orders to delay the trial as long as possible. They have so many motions that they are allowed to make, and make one at a time, that delaying seventeen months until the election should be child's play. They will surely move for change of venue, and if the DOJ moves for a change of judge, it will only seem fair. But the DOJ will fight the change of venue and that will take time.

With all that going on, Trump's rallies will be massive, and he will have plenty of talking points with which to whip up the crowds. Meanwhile, the Hidin' Biden strategy will look ridiculous, with COVID not being able to excuse it.

This is a comical take. This is not the beginning, the beginning was when NARA wrote Trump (via counsel) to open the process of returning documents in accordance with the PRA. Trump, via counsel, took action - including providing false responses and even false (though intentionally loosely worded) affidavit certification regarding the state of the material and their return. Trump has had a series of "moves" in this episode, and under his direction, they have proven to be miscalculations that have now placed him and his staff under extensive federal criminal indictment. Throughout, Trump has been working with counsel, most of whom have resigned from their representation (which in these situations almost always means that there are material differences between the legal advice and the actions of the client). This idea that Trump is sitting on the sideline waiting to get in the game with a refined and potent strategy is utter nonsense. He's been in the game from day 1 and managed to convert this from a simple administrative federal records recovery request into a full-blown criminal prosecution. The indictment is clear that had he simply gone through the NARA process, and truthfully, he would not be prosecuted.

Similarly absurd is the notion that the public has no "real information" except for media leaks. We have a fairly extensive history in the record for the search warrant. We have a lengthy federal indictment with quite detailed factual allegations supported by oath of career federal investigators. What we also have are a number of filings by Trump in the search warrant case where he offers literally no defense to the allegations, only Trumpian obfuscation and misstatements of applicable law. The 11th Circuit panel (2/3 of which was Trump appointed judges) were not kind to the positions Trump took in those proceedings - this idea that that Trump is holding aces is comically detached from the record to date. The only real ace he has at this point is Judge Cannon, who is just wholly unqualified and awful to be on the federal bench in the first place, much less to be sitting on a case like this. But we'll see if she's any more gun shy after the beatdown she got from the 11th Circuit.

And I don't know how much you know about federal criminal prosecution but "discovery" in a criminal case is not the same as discovery in a civil case, with broad-based document searches and material witness depositions. The prosecutors will provide the documents they will use and they will identify the witnesses that will testify at the trial and the general nature of their testimony . . . that's it. And as has already been pointed out, those witnesses have already testified under oath and with penalty of perjury through the federal interview and grand jury process. The only thing that hasn't happened yet with regard to material witnesses is cross examination, which yes, is a big deal if Trump can manage to put together a legitimate legal team (he's been very bad at that lately).

You're right that the timeline is hard to predict at this point. I don't think there is any basis for a change in venue. I similarly doubt that there's a basis for DOJ to prevail on a challenge to Judge Cannon. Certainly judicial recusal based in lack of impartiality bears consideration here, but ultimately that is discretionary on these facts. We'll see but I wouldn't be surprised if those efforts fail. I'm also not sure just how hard DOJ is aiming for conviction before the election - it may be difficult to move the case that quickly and the only way it really matters is if Trump were to win, which is quite unlikely at this point. And it's not so much a question of self-pardon, which is highly dubious as a legal matter, but of non-prosecution. That part is interesting for sure but I think Jack Smith would say that this is application of federal criminal law to these facts and conduct and they're going to prosecute the case on those merits as best they can. The timeline will be what it is and if other events intervene, so be it.

 

[Snarky Sack]

The indictment contains a great deal of evidence. You don't have to wait for anything, you can just read the indictment.

The indictment contains accusations and promises to present evidence. I've read it and I now know what Trump is officially accused of. If it ever gets to trial, I'll see some of the evidence. I'm predicting another Deus Ex Machina moment in history, as powerful politicians so often have.

If Trump is president before the trial ends, he'll obviously pardon himself and the jury goes home. If DeSantis is president, he will almost certainly pardon Trump with some speech about how Trump did a lot of bad things, but for the sake of allowing the country to heal, blah, blah, blah. Same stuff Ford said about Nixon.

Biden winning he WH is the only scenario in which Trump is found guilty and not pardoned. That's doubful, but I don't want to get the thread off track.

 

[samiam5211]

The indictment contains accusations and promises to present evidence. I've read it and I now know what Trump is officially accused of. If it ever gets to trial, I'll see some of the evidence. I'm predicting another Deus Ex Machina moment in history, as powerful politicians so often have.

If Trump is president before the trial ends, he'll obviously pardon himself and the jury goes home. If DeSantis is president, he will almost certainly pardon Trump with some speech about how Trump did a lot of bad things, but for the sake of allowing the country to heal, blah, blah, blah. Same stuff Ford said about Nixon.

Biden winning he WH is the only scenario in which Trump is found guilty and not pardoned. That's doubful, but I don't want to get the thread off track.

There is plenty of evidence in the indictment.

 

[superchuck500]

The indictment contains accusations and promises to present evidence. I've read it and I now know what Trump is officially accused of. If it ever gets to trial, I'll see some of the evidence. I'm predicting another Deus Ex Machina moment in history, as powerful politicians so often have.

If Trump is president before the trial ends, he'll obviously pardon himself and the jury goes home. If DeSantis is president, he will almost certainly pardon Trump with some speech about how Trump did a lot of bad things, but for the sake of allowing the country to heal, blah, blah, blah. Same stuff Ford said about Nixon.

Biden winning he WH is the only scenario in which Trump is found guilty and not pardoned. That's doubful, but I don't want to get the thread off track.

Self-pardon has never happened so it would certainly go to the Supreme Court. Most legal scholars believe that self-pardon is not permissible (with authority that includes the Federalist Papers themselves). But he certainly could be pardoned by someone else who was president, even if just for a few minutes.

 

[superchuck500]

There is plenty of evidence in the indictment.

It describes evidence to be proffered but it isn’t actually evidence (yet).

 

[coldseat]

Destroying no. I said that part wasn't the same. Trump is not accused of incorrectly storing classified information? I thought he was.

These goalposts must no be on wheels, they must be on some kind of rocket powered sled.

From the New York Times:

WASHINGTON — On a Friday morning in June 2011, after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had waited more than 12 hours for a set of talking points to be sent to her, a top aide told her the delay was because staff members were having problems sending faxes that would be secure from probing eyes.

“If they can’t, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure,” Mrs. Clinton responded in an email released early Friday by the State Department, one of about 3,000 newly released pages of Mrs. Clinton’s emails during her time as secretary of state. Of those, 66 documents contained classified information.

The note she sent to the top aide, Jacob J. Sullivan, instructing him how to strip sensitive material of official markings and send it in a “nonsecure” way is heavily redacted, so it is unknown what the talking points were about.

Keep in mind that this one is an anti-Trump story:

Trump Privately Applauded Hillary Clinton’s Lawyer for Deleting Her Emails

He seemed to imply to his attorneys that they ought to be as “great” as Hillary’s lawyer.

newrepublic.com

Clinton's lawyer deleted 30,000 emails that were under subpoena. Trump praised the lawyer for it. Another example of the similarities between Trump and Clinton when it comes to responding the demands for return of documents.


This CNN lady didn't know this either, so you're in good company:

CNN anchor Brooke Baldwin was in disbelief when she learned that Hillary Clinton’s aides destroyed her phones with a hammer.

When Boris Epshteyn, an adviser to Donald Trump, told her on air that the Democratic nominee’s aides destroyed her BlackBerries with hammers, Baldwin interrupted him to ask a reporter to fact-check that statement.

“Evan, hold on, can you fact-check?” Baldwin asked reporter Evan Perez on “CNN Newsroom” on Friday. “Evan Perez? Hammers? Fact-check that for me, on the fly.”

“Yes they did, Brooke.” Perez responded. “As he mentioned, there were 13 mobile devices and 5 iPads that the FBI said that in some way were used with her private email server, and they did in some cases just destroy them with hammers when they were done using them.”

Watch CNN anchor’s disbelief that Clinton aides destroyed phones with hammer

Brooke Baldwin asked for an on-the-fly fact-check.

thehill.com

If you need more evidence of destruction of evidence, just google "server bleachbit."

You need to take these Clinton post to another thread. Create one if you must discuss it. This isn't the Clinton Indictment thread. It's the Trump Indictment thread. Whatever happened you think happened with Clinton isn't relevant here.

 

[samiam5211]

It describes evidence to be proffered but it isn’t actually evidence (yet).

I assume that the photos at least could be called evidence, right?

 

[superchuck500]

I assume that the photos at least could be called evidence, right?

Colloquially yes. Sometimes photos are inadmissible but I think it’s rare.

 

[Snarky Sack]

This is a comical take. This is not the beginning,

Superchuck500, I specifically said that it was the end of the beginning, not the beginning.

the beginning was when NARA wrote Trump (via counsel) to open the process of returning documents in accordance with the PRA. Trump, via counsel, took action - including providing false responses and even false (though intentionally loosely worded) affidavit certification regarding the state of the material and their return. Trump has had a series of "moves" in this episode, and under his direction, they have proven to be miscalculations that have now placed him and his staff under extensive federal criminal indictment. Throughout, Trump has been working with counsel, most of whom have resigned from their representation (which in these situations almost always means that there are material differences between the legal advice and the actions of the client). This idea that Trump is sitting on the sideline waiting to get in the game with a refined and potent strategy is utter nonsense. He's been in the game from day 1 and managed to convert this from a simple administrative federal records recovery request into a full-blown criminal prosecution. The indictment is clear that had he simply gone through the NARA process, and truthfully, he would not be prosecuted.

So, he is literally being prosecuted in federal court for the equivalent of an overdue library book. His lawyers will have a field day with that if it ever makes it in front of a jury.

You realize that that means that one of the questions the prosecution would have to ask in voir dire is "have you ever had an overdue library book?" I don't know how many preemptive strikes of jurors you get in federal court, but they will have use up several on that question alone.

Similarly absurd is the notion that the public has no "real information" except for media leaks. We have a fairly extensive history in the record for the search warrant. We have a lengthy federal
indictment with quite detailed factual allegations supported by oath of career federal investigators.

We saw that that is worth in the Carter Page FISA warrant applications.

What we also have are a number of filings by Trump in the search warrant case where he offers literally no defense to the allegations, only Trumpian obfuscation and misstatements of applicable law. The 11th Circuit panel (2/3 of which was Trump appointed judges) were not kind to the positions Trump took in those proceedings - this idea that that Trump is holding aces is comically detached from the record to date. The only real ace he has at this point is Judge Cannon, who is just wholly unqualified and awful to be on the federal bench in the first place, much less to be sitting on a case like this. But we'll see if she's any more gun shy after the beatdown she got from the 11th Circuit.

Overly dramatic. An overturned ruling is not a "beatdown." Did the current USSC give the past USSC a "beatdown" when it overturned Roe v. Wade? She won't be gun shy. Trump picks strong women, not people who melt over one ruling.

We'll see how in the world the come up with a judge that can be accepted as impartial when they are almost all highly partisan appointees by one side or the other. I agree that Cannon will not be the judge for long. That process of finding the right judge will be yet another delaying factor.

It's not like the OJ case where they said, "Hey, pick an Asian guy!" The judicial branch knows this case is a political hot potato, and they will not want to be burned. So they will be very careful and probably take a lot of time looking for an ideal judge that likely does not exist.

And I don't know how much you know about federal criminal prosecution but "discovery" in a criminal case is not the same as discovery in a civil case, with broad-based document searches and material witness depositions. The prosecutors will provide the documents they will use and they will identify the witnesses that will testify at the trial and the general nature of their testimony . . . that's it.

"That's it?" That sounds like plenty.

You may know more about the law than I, so I'll ask: Does Brady not apply somehow? You said the prosecution only has to provide the documents they will use. I always thought that they also had to provide any exculpatory evidence. That process alone would be a protracted fight.

Trump's lawyers will demand "everything," so they can "check to see if it has exculpatory evidence that the farging bastages are withholding." The prosecutors will say WTTE of "there IS no exculpatory evidence because he's GUILTY, Nyaah!" Then the fight will be on.

But you seem to know about it. How much time will it take for the prosecution and the defense to agree that the prosecution has turned over all that it needs? If the judge cuts off the debate on that topic with a ruling before they agree, how likely is the USSC to make an emergency ruling after putting the case on hold. Remember that the current USSC is often called "The Trump Court."

And as has already been pointed out, those witnesses have already testified under oath and with penalty of perjury through the federal interview and grand jury process. The only thing that hasn't happened yet with regard to material witnesses is cross examination, which yes, is a big deal if Trump can manage to put together a legitimate legal team (he's been very bad at that lately).

Yes, the testimony under oath was very one-sided, as always. The prosecution would love to only show Team Trump what it will use in court, but Team Trump will be entitled to see all of it. How long do you think it will take them to carefully go over all of that testimony?

You're right that the timeline is hard to predict at this point.

Hard to predict exactly, but I think it is very predictable that Team Trump will take as long as possible.

I don't think there is any basis for a change in venue. I similarly doubt that there's a basis for DOJ to prevail on a challenge to Judge Cannon.

Certainly judicial recusal based in lack of impartiality bears consideration here, but ultimately that is discretionary on these facts. We'll see but I wouldn't be surprised if those efforts fail.

Interesting. Most of the Trump opponents on here seem pretty sure she won't last. I agree, but you may be right. If Cannon stays, she won't make it harder for the prosecution, but she won't make it easier, either. I think most importantly to my point is that she will give Team Trump all the time they need. I think almost any judge will do that, though because they don't want to be accused of railroading Trump.

I'm also not sure just how hard DOJ is aiming for conviction before the election - it may be difficult to move the case that quickly and the only way it really matters is if Trump were to win, which is quite unlikely at this point. And it's not so much a question of self-pardon, which is highly dubious as a legal matter, but of non-prosecution. That part is interesting for sure but I think Jack Smith would say that this is application of federal criminal law to these facts and conduct and they're going to prosecute the case on those merits as best they can. The timeline will be what it is and if other events intervene, so be it.

Nice post! I feel bad nit-picking in my first sentence, but I barely have time to defend what I do say, much less time to defend things I never said.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

10 pages of...

...defense. Sad.

The whole fake idea that this trump ivestigation is about the '24 election is just another example of Republicans accusing Democrats of doing something that Republicans have done or doing themselves.

McCarthy: "Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she's untrustable. But no one would have known any of that had happened, had we not fought."

HRC's email scandal was a systemic within the government as a whole. Electronic record keeping was still in its infancy and many government agencies failed to govern its uses early on because their guidance were still being written. Both her predecessors used their private email accounts to conduct government business as well.

The state department watchdog found that both Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, America’s top diplomats under president George W Bush, were sent sensitive national security information to nongovernment email addresses.

Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice used private accounts for classified emails

Hillary Clinton’s campaign has seized on findings that Rice and Powell were sent sensitive national security information to nongovernment email addresses

www.theguardian.com

This attempt to paint trump's alleged crimes are equal to HRC's carelessness is for the ill informed. The "THOUSANDS" of classified documents that were found in HRC's private email were communications discussing information that was classified not the source materials that trump had in his possession. Was it wrong for HRC and her staff to communicate through her private email? Yes. As I said earlier, it was a systemic problem throughout government which likely still exist with some entities.

Trump intentionally took classified material that was directly from our nation's Intelligence Community as a, best case scenario, conversation piece to show off to anyone who would listen. When confronted, he denied and tried to hide the documents. In the indictment alone, there was at least 2 instances where he disclosed this information to others. Does anyone want to deny that he that? Is that the same thing HRC did?

Anyone doubts that we will find out that there were more during his trial?

 

[Snarky Sack]

Self-pardon has never happened so it would certainly go to the Supreme Court. Most legal scholars believe that self-pardon is not permissible (with authority that includes the Federalist Papers themselves). But he certainly could be pardoned by someone else who was president, even if just for a few minutes.

Interesting.

Who'd you have in mind?

 

[FullMonte]

If Trump did that, I disagree with him. He should have let it drop. All I remember that Jeff Sessions ever did was dodder in front Congress almost as much as Mueller did, and recuse himself from the Trump investigations.

Ironically if Jeff Sessions had reinvestigated and gotten an indictment of Clinton, the whole idea of indicting Trump for the same thing would have much more substance. Oh, well. Coulda, woulda, shoulda, huh?

Yep, he did it. And, perhaps, after investigating it for the second time, there simply wasn’t enough evidence to warrant charges.

Sessions Letter Shows DOJ Acted on Trump’s Authoritarian Demand to Investigate Clinton - American Oversight

American Oversight uncovered the signed directive from Sessions instructing a federal prosecutor to carry out Trump’s authoritarian demand to investigate Hillary Clinton.

www.americanoversight.org

 

[Optimus Prime]

Destroying no. I said that part wasn't the same. Trump is not accused of incorrectly storing classified information? I thought he was.

These goalposts must no be on wheels, they must be on some kind of rocket powered sled.

From the New York Times:

I'll read that article, if you will please paypal me the money to subscribe.

I thought you couldn't read new york times articles