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

 

[Snarky Sack]

I’m not sure - it’s really early, we don’t know what the time variables are going to be. Local rules provide that within 21 days of arraignment, the parties will file a joint status report that is to include dates when they believe trial can commence.

If I had to guess, I’d say next spring seems reasonable. The NY case is set for trial in March, so there may be some conflict there. Typically state prosecutors defer to feds when there are scheduling conflicts.

That's about what I'd guess also.

I talk about Trump delaying the trial, but I'm not necessarily sure that he will want to. His lawyers will, its the standard defense attorney tactic. I think that the prosecution will also want to delay it; Trump may be the only one wanting to get it over with.

A hung jury is the best that the prosecution can reasonably hope for, IMHO.

 

[DaveXA]

That's about what I'd guess also.

I talk about Trump delaying the trial, but I'm not necessarily sure that he will want to. His lawyers will, its the standard defense attorney tactic. I think that the prosecution will also want to delay it; Trump may be the only one wanting to get it over with.

A hung jury is the best that the prosecution can reasonably hope for, IMHO.

Don't be silly. With an 80+% conviction rate in federal trials, the best they can hope for is a conviction on all counts. A hung jury gets them nothing, not exactly something they'd hope for.

And to think the prosecution would want to delay the trial makes no sense.

Regardless, considering the nature of the charges being as straightforward as they are, I'm not seeing a lot of stalling tactics the defense can use to delay the trial any substantial length of time, so it might not take all that long.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Don't be silly. With an 80+% conviction rate in federal trials, the best they can hope for is a conviction on all counts. A hung jury gets them nothing, not exactly something they'd hope for.

What happens to the trials in the 20-% cases that do not get convictions?

EDIT: Sorry, it was rude to ask it that way. What happens in those cases is an acquittal, a hung jury, or some other outcome that is not a conviction. The Trump case, having been brought for many wrong reasons, is ripe to be in that one out of five.

A hung jury saves them from the humiliation of an acquittal. They should keep their fingers crossed.

 

[FullMonte]

What happens to the trials in the 20-% cases that do not get convictions?

EDIT: Sorry, it was rude to ask it that way. What happens in those cases is an acquittal, a hung jury, or some other outcome that is not a conviction. The Trump case, having been brought for many wrong reasons, is ripe to be in that one out of five.

A hung jury saves them from the humiliation of an acquittal. They should keep their fingers crossed.

Also, there is a VERY important thing to point out about the DOJ's conviction rate. In 2018, the DOJ got convictions in 83% of their cases.

HOWEVER...that is the total percentage of people convicted versus people charged. The actual conviction rate of cases that went to trial is 99%. Out of right at 80,000 federal defendants that year....320....only 320...went to trial and were acquitted. Around 8% had their cases dismissed. I don't see that happening here. 90% ended with a plea bargain. I also don't see that happening here. Trump was advised to work out a deal long before this became public, and he decided to follow the advice of a website owner instead of his lawyers. At this point, the DOJ has little to no motivation to accept a plea deal, since doing so will allow Trump to trash them more and use that as a way to show that the case was all a big hoax...and if the DOJ has the evidence they claim to have, they have a pretty solid case. I also don't see Trump admitting to any serious crimes as would be required for a plea in a case like this.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Also, there is a VERY important thing to point out about the DOJ's conviction rate. In 2018, the DOJ got convictions in 83% of their cases.

HOWEVER...that is the total percentage of people convicted versus people charged. The actual conviction rate of cases that went to trial is 99%. Out of right at 80,000 federal defendants that year....320....only 320...went to trial and were acquitted. Around 8% had their cases dismissed. I don't see that happening here. 90% ended with a plea bargain. I also don't see that happening here. Trump was advised to work out a deal long before this became public, and he decided to follow the advice of a website owner instead of his lawyers. At this point, the DOJ has little to no motivation to accept a plea deal, since doing so will allow Trump to trash them more and use that as a way to show that the case was all a big hoax...and if the DOJ has the evidence they claim to have, they have a pretty solid case. I also don't see Trump admitting to any serious crimes as would be required for a plea in a case like this.

Several posters are offering different numbers, so this is getting confusing. If you want to show a link, I'll look at it. But, you may not want to bother. I'll tell you my likely reaction in advance.

If 99% of people charged got convicted, then I say that Trump's case is one in a thousand, or one on ten thousand, or simply one standing alone as far as documented prosecutorial and investigative misconduct, extreme bias and political motivation. Not my opinion on those. Documented fact.

Well, maybe you could argue that it is my opinion on the bias and political motivation. If you can argue with a straight face that the Strzok and Page emails did not demonstrate extreme bias and political motivation, I'll be glad to read your reasoning.

Also, Trump has a huge "war chest" to pay lawyers that is larger than the overwhelming majority, which reduces the probability against him. It should not be surprising that, faced with the might of the federal prosecutors and their armed investigators, people decide to take plea deals.

I don't doubt that the DOJ gets convictions in the overwhelming majority of cases that it charges. But how many cases have taken them seven years of one highly prioritized investigation after another to finally get an indictment?

 

[LA - L.A.]

Several posters are offering different numbers, so this is getting confusing. If you want to show a link, I'll look at it.

Asked and now answered with source:

Only 2% of federal criminal defendants went to trial in 2018, and most who did were found guilty

Trials are rare in the federal criminal justice system: Just 2% of criminal defendants went to trial in fiscal 2018. Acquittals are even rarer.

www.pewresearch.org

Nearly 80,000 people were defendants in federal criminal cases in fiscal 2018, but just 2% of them went to trial. The overwhelming majority (90%) pleaded guilty instead, while the remaining 8% had their cases dismissed, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of data collected by the federal judiciary.

Most defendants who did go to trial, meanwhile, were found guilty, either by a jury or judge. (Defendants can waive their right to a jury trial if they wish.)

Put another way, only 320 of 79,704 total federal defendants – fewer than 1% – went to trial and won their cases, at least in the form of an acquittal, according to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.

Those are objective statistical facts, not opinions. Which brings us to:

Not my opinion on those. Documented fact.

You claim it's documented, but you have not documented the percentage of defendants that won their trials on the grounds of prosecutorial misconduct or due to being politically motivated prosecutions. Using your own words, "if you want to show a link, I'll look at it."

The 8% of cases that were dismissed, were dismissed before going to trial, not during the trial. Trump will probably make pre-trial motions to dismiss, but it remains to be seen if the judge will grant them.

 

[MT15]

The first phase of discovery documents have been released to Trump’s legal team. DOJ is not going to slow walk this. They will go as fast as they legally can with such an open and shut case.

 

[MT15]

Somewhat similar case - not exactly, but a few similarities in that I think the charges are under the same statute:

 

[LA - L.A.]

The first phase of discovery documents have been released to Trump’s legal team. DOJ is not going to slow walk this. They will go as fast as they legally can with such an open and shut case.

That didn't take very long.

 

[superchuck500]

That's about what I'd guess also.

I talk about Trump delaying the trial, but I'm not necessarily sure that he will want to. His lawyers will, its the standard defense attorney tactic. I think that the prosecution will also want to delay it; Trump may be the only one wanting to get it over with.

A hung jury is the best that the prosecution can reasonably hope for, IMHO.

I think the prosecution is happy to go sooner rather than later. I think trump will want to push it out as long as he can - depending on the quality of his arguments and other events will determine whether he’s successful. To date, the only thing he’s won on is the special master at the district court level, and it just so happens that it’s the same judge so I think it would be foolish to presume his positions on time and evidence will be rejected out of hand.

But similarly, it’s foolish to not recognize that he’s in some real jeopardy here - and he brought it entirely upon himself. I think the prosecution fully expects to win on at least some of the counts.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Donald Trump’s indictment earlier this month on 37 counts related to mishandling classified information set off a firestorm on the political right.

Conservatives accused Joe Biden of using the justice system to prosecute his main political rival and attempting to “steal” the 2024 election. Kevin McCarthy, the Republican speaker of the House of Representatives, promised to “hold this brazen weaponization of power accountable”.

In short, the right wants us to believe that Biden and his administration will stop at nothing to put Trump in jail as quickly as possible.

In fact, the exact opposite is true. Worried about just this type of accusation, the justice department under Merrick Garland and the FBI have approached their investigations of Trump much too cautiously.

Far from being persecuted because of who he is, Trump’s status as a former president and as the unofficial leader of the Republican party have led to him being handled with vastly more deference than anyone else would be. The result has been a series of delays and missteps which may allow Trump to escape accountability once again.

It is now nearly 18 months since the government first recovered classified material from Mar-a-Lago in early 2022. Although the justice department concluded shortly afterwards that Trump likely possessed further sensitive material, it took seven months for Mar-a-Lago to be searched, in part because the FBI feared that the move would open the agency to accusations of partisanship.

Trump was then only indicted nearly a year later. After his initial arraignment he remains a free man, released without having to post bail – despite credible concerns he may still have additional classified material in his possession.

Compare that timeline to the events surrounding the arrest of intelligence contractor Reality Winner, who in 2017 received a five-year prison sentence for leaking one document to the news website the Intercept. The document Winner leaked was written on 5 May 2017 and she was arrested on 3 June, days before the Intercept even had a chance to publish its article about her leak. She was indicted on 8 June and jailed pending her trial. Winner later pleaded guilty to violating the Espionage Act – precisely the law that it seemed clear Trump had flouted for over a year before he was indicted.

Trump has likewise been slow to face consequences in the federal investigation into his actions leading up to the insurrection at the US Capitol. According to a new report by the Washington Post, the justice department and FBI delayed launching a probe into Trump’s push to overturn the 2020 election for 15 months, again because of fears that they would be criticized for partisanship.

The agencies instead pursued cases against rank-and-file insurrectionists, ignoring the existence of evidence implicating Trump and his inner circle until media and political pressure forced them to begin taking it seriously.

These delays matter because they make it possible – even likely – that Trump will never truly face accountability for his actions. Trump’s trial in the documents case is unlikely to be held before the 2024 presidential election and the same is true for any possible charges in the January 6 case.

If Trump wins the election and becomes president again – as current polls suggest he will – then he will have multiple tools at his disposal to derail the trials or even pardon himself. Justice delayed will be justice denied…….

The right believes the FBI is obsessed with jailing Trump. The opposite is true | Andrew Gawthorpe

Far from being persecuted, Trump has been handled with vastly more deference than anyone else would be

www.theguardian.com

 

[superchuck500]

 

[Snarky Sack]

I think the prosecution is happy to go sooner rather than later. I think trump will want to push it out as long as he can - depending on the quality of his arguments and other events will determine whether he’s successful. To date, the only thing he’s won on is the special master at the district court level, and it just so happens that it’s the same judge so I think it would be foolish to presume his positions on time and evidence will be rejected out of hand.

But similarly, it’s foolish to not recognize that he’s in some real jeopardy here - and he brought it entirely upon himself. I think the prosecution fully expects to win on at least some of the counts.

I don't dispute that he might be convicted on some counts, maybe as a way for the jury to break a deadlock. They might offer the Trump supporters on the jury to acquit on all but one charge, something like that. They might accept it.

No doubt the prosecution would love to go immediately. They took their sweet grass time getting their case ready to present to the grand jury, but they would love to rush the defense into starting unprepared. My assumption would that they presented the case to the Grand Jury at its peak, meaning at its most prepared. Maintaining any case in peak condition over several months will be challenging.

That's why defense attorneys typically look for reasons for delay. They see his jeopardy, even if Trump doesn't really.

I'm starting to wonder how seriously he takes this. There was some talk on here of any prison time being served under house arrest. I agree that this is the only type confinement he might ever experience.

If he loses 2024, he'd have no reason not to return to his former life of sexual excess in the luxurious surroundings of Mar-a-Lago. If he wins in 2024, he'll simply pardon himself and walk out.

Not saying that he would enjoy house arrest; any constraint on his travel would be hateful for him. But he's not like other potential convicts, wondering if he should take Karate, google how to hire convict protection, or just get used to being somebody's biscuit.

 

[superchuck500]

I don't dispute that he might be convicted on some counts, maybe as a way for the jury to break a deadlock. They might offer the Trump supporters on the jury to acquit on all but one charge, something like that. They might accept it.

No doubt the prosecution would love to go immediately. They took their sweet grass time getting their case ready to present to the grand jury, but they would love to rush the defense into starting unprepared. My assumption would that they presented the case to the Grand Jury at its peak, meaning at its most prepared. Maintaining any case in peak condition over several months will be challenging.

That's why defense attorneys typically look for reasons for delay. They see his jeopardy, even if Trump doesn't really.

I'm starting to wonder how seriously he takes this. There was some talk on here of any prison time being served under house arrest. I agree that this is the only type confinement he might ever experience.

If he loses 2024, he'd have no reason not to return to his former life of sexual excess in the luxurious surroundings of Mar-a-Lago. If he wins in 2024, he'll simply pardon himself and walk out.

Not saying that he would enjoy house arrest; any constraint on his travel would be hateful for him. But he's not like other potential convicts, wondering if he should take Karate, google how to hire convict protection, or just get used to being somebody's biscuit.

I just don’t see how you can go on and on about what’s going to happen in the trial when you don’t really know how the government is going to present its case and what Trump’s defense is going to look like.

But I will say l that you keep mentioning self-pardon as this magic eraser and, again, there is substantial doubt that it can be done.

 

[MT15]

If what I read is correct, though, they didn’t charge her with dissemination, but only retention. Just like Trump.

On another note, if there were possible foreign agents aware of this rather obscure analyst and her retention of documents, how likely is it that none of the current crop of foreign agents in the US were unaware of what Trump was doing with his documents?

I don’t think we will ever know who got a look at the documents Trump illegally took and held.

 

[Taurus]

I just don’t see how you can go on and on about what’s going to happen in the trial when you don’t really know how the government is going to present its case and what Trump’s defense is going to look like.

But I will say l that you keep mentioning self-pardon as this magic eraser and, again, there is substantial doubt that it can be done.

That's the thing. Trump would do it anyway, then dare the DOJ/SCOTUS to do something about it.

 

[Snarky Sack]

I just don’t see how you can go on and on about what’s going to happen in the trial when you don’t really know how the government is going to present its case and what Trump’s defense is going to look like.

No but if others are free to speculate I'm not sure why it's an issue if I do it. Obviously, I'm not claiming any psychic powers.

But I will say l that you keep mentioning self-pardon as this magic eraser and, again, there is substantial doubt that it can be done.

Trump will certainly try.

Suppose he pardons himself from Mar a Lago, jumps in the infamous "Beast" and drives to the WH. How would that be undone?

 

[Snarky Sack]

That's the thing. Trump would do it anyway, then dare the DOJ/SCOTUS to do something about it.

What he said.