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

 

[FullMonte]

Trump is now begging Republicans in Congress to save him from the investigations and indictments. Even Trump has given up on trying to distort and twist what the actual facts of the case are.

I saw something interesting about that post by trump, but I can’t remember if it was here or not.

In short, they pointed out that yesterday, the prosecutors sent the first tranche of evidence to Trumps team. Not much later, Trump made a post asking for Congress’ help.

But that message didn’t contain any of Trumps normal bluster, no insults, no ranting. A very different tone. Is it possible that once his lawyers saw some of the evidence, they realized just how bad this is…and we’re able to make Trump understand how precarious his situation is? Maybe, even just for a moment, Trump realized that he is in real trouble.

 

[Snarky Sack]

DOJ moves to continue trial until 12/11/2023:

How real is it that the DOJ asked for this continuance? I don't see this on CNN, or MSNBC, or PBS. I want to say a few things - quite a few things - but if it turns out to be fake, It'd be a flash in the pan.

Whoops, never mind. It is on CNN, but they avoid they words "DOJ asks for continuance." Instead, they said:

The special counsel’s office has asked for Donald Trump to be tried in December in the Mar-a-Lago documents matter, because of how classified records must be handled carefully within the criminal case.

Nicest way to put this is that no one who has been reading my posts should be surprised by this move.

No doubt they DOJ was expecting Trump's lawyers to request a delay as defense attorneys nearly always do. Now they have to make this embarrassing motion. We'll see if Team Trump fights it.

So, my question is why would the DOJ indict anyone - much less a leading presidential candidate - if they are not ready to go to trial? If they could not convict if the trial started tomorrow, how can they assure us that they can get conviction in a trial that starts almost five months from now?

If this were about getting a dangerous criminal off the streets, they would want no delays. But, since it is about getting a perceived dangerous candidate out of the race, they use the delay strategy to ensure that the trial interferes with the whole election, not just the beginning of primary season.

Trump is entitled to a speedy trial under the Constitution, but unfortunately, the federal rules have a loophole that motions by either side stop that clock, so that right is a chimera.

 

[MT15]

If you read the tweet I posted - the DOJ wants to set a trial date that is realistic but not too far down the road. They also asked for 2 other things. A list of people that they don’t want Trump or Nauta to talk to before the trial, and a hearing on the classified status of the Trump lawyers, IIRC.

I read that DOJ is ready to expedite getting clearances for the legal team, but not all of Trump’s lawyers have sent in the paperwork. So they want to speed that up a bit.

 

[Snarky Sack]

If you read the tweet I posted - the DOJ wants to set a trial date that is realistic but not too far down the road. They also asked for 2 other things. A list of people that they don’t want Trump or Nauta to talk to before the trial, and a hearing on the classified status of the Trump lawyers, IIRC.

I read that DOJ is ready to expedite getting clearances for the legal team, but not all of Trump’s lawyers have sent in the paperwork. So they want to speed that up a bit.

Of course they didn't just admit that they are not ready. They came up with excuses that are believable to people are predisposed to believe them.

Once they do all that, they will find more reasons for more delays. I predicted this delay, and I can just as easily predict the next.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Nicest way to put this is that no one who has been reading my posts should be surprised by this move.

Nicest way to put this is that no one should be surprised by this move from prosecutors, regardless of whether or not they read anyone's post on here or not.

The prosecution is proactively and preemptively asking for a continuance to minimize the legal opportunities that Trump has to make motions to delay the trial even further. They are addressing issues that Trump can object to before he has a chance to object and delay.

 

[MT15]

Of course they didn't just admit that they are not ready. They came up with excuses that are believable to people are predisposed to believe them.

Once they do all that, they will find more reasons for more delays. I predicted this delay, and I can just as easily predict the next.

Well, we shall see. But, IIRC and Chuck can weigh in here, when Smith makes statements in court filings that he is ready and able to go to trial in a speedy manner - and I read that he did make those types of statements, he can get in a lot of trouble if he’s lying.

The good thing about this is that it will become obvious over the next six months which one of us is right.

 

[LA - L.A.]

I predicted this delay, and I can just as easily predict the next.

Okay, then. What and when will be the next delay from the prosecutions and how long will that delay be?

 

[Snarky Sack]

Well, we shall see. But, IIRC and Chuck can weigh in here, when Smith makes statements in court filings that he is ready and able to go to trial in a speedy manner - and I read that he did make those types of statements, he can get in a lot of trouble if he’s lying.

If he did say that, he was obviously lying. But he won't be in trouble, because he'll talk like a lawyer and say that he meant after all of the motions were done - then he is ready and able to go to trial. Or he'll say that pre-trial motions are actually part of the trial.

But most likely, he'll need not say anything. Judges are lawyers in robes, and she will know his answers before she would ask the questions.

The good thing about this is that it will become obvious over the next six months which one of us is right.

I can wait. Same as Smith can.

 

[superchuck500]

How real is it that the DOJ asked for this continuance? I don't see this on CNN, or MSNBC, or PBS. I want to say a few things - quite a few things - but if it turns out to be fake, It'd be a flash in the pan.

News sites are generally terrible at legal matters - they don’t have lawyers on their news staffs and they’re very bad at quick reads of legal filings. They have legal commentary staff but they’re not on round the clock like their news staff.

But all federal court dockets (with alerts of new filings) can be followed easily - the pay site PACER is the most prompt, practically real time, then other sites like Court Listener are basically bot sites that pull from PACER.

When you see someone like Opening Arguments, a well known legal podcast, posting filed documents with the federal court electronic file stamp across the top, it’s real because it’s the actual filing from the court case. It’s not some second-hand source saying what happened, it’s the actual document pulled from PACER. Whether CNN has it or what CNN says about it are totally irrelevant.

 

[Snarky Sack]

News sites are generally terrible at legal matters - they don’t have lawyers on their news staffs and they’re very bad at quick reads of legal filings. They have legal commentary staff but they’re not on round the clock like their news staff.

But all federal court dockets (with alerts of new filings) can be followed easily - the pay site PACER is the most prompt, practically real time, then other sites like Court Listener are basically bot sites that pull from PACER.

When you see someone like Opening Arguments, a well known legal podcast, posting filed documents with the federal court electronic file stamp across the top, it’s real because it’s the actual filing from the court case. It’s not some second-hand source saying what happened, it’s the actual document pulled from PACER. Whether CNN has it or what CNN says about it are totally irrelevant.

Thanks, I'll check them out.

I agree about CNN. My mistake was searching on "continuance" and "delay." Of course CNN will avoid those words like the plague.

By tomorrow the Orwellians in the media will be saying things like "Special Counsel Smith insists that the trial start straightaway, as early as December!"

If it were Trump who asked for a continuance, they would use words like "stall," and "delaying tactic."

 

[DaveXA]

Thanks, I'll check them out.

I agree about CNN. My mistake was searching on "continuance" and "delay." Of course CNN will avoid those words like the plague.

By tomorrow the Orwellians in the media will be saying things like "Special Counsel Smith insists that the trial start straightaway, as early as December!"

If it were Trump who asked for a continuance, they would use words like "stall," and "delaying tactic."

They don't intentionally avoid the terminology. Rather, they simply use terms they're used to using. As Chuck pointed out, news organizations are generally terrible at reporting legal filings because they don't always have legal experts available to them.

 

[Snarky Sack]

It is very weird that they are charging Nauta, and even weirder that they are trying them at the same time.

I'm guessing that no matter how they pressured Nauta, threatened with max prison time, threatened to go after his family, or any of their usual tactics, he resisted. Maybe they are hoping for a mid-trial jump to the prosecution side in exchange for dropped charges. Or perhaps a Perry Mason moment in which the prosecutor trips up Nauta on the stand, having failed to do so with Trump.

but my best guess is that the prosecution is simply grasping at the latest straw they see dangling in front of them.

 

[Snarky Sack]

So, question for those who were sure the trial would be speedy: The prosecution took ten months from the Mar-a-Lago raid until the indictment. Now they ask for nearly six months of additional time. So that is one and one- third year to prosecute based on evidence of crimes that they assured the magistrate they would find when they asked for the warrant.

As December 11th approaches, if Team Trump finds itself not yet prepared for the defense, how much time should they be allowed?

 

[FullMonte]

No doubt they DOJ was expecting Trump's lawyers to request a delay as defense attorneys nearly always do. Now they have to make this embarrassing motion. We'll see if Team Trump fights it.

Not really embarassing. They even state in the filing that Trump's attorneys have not all submitted their SF-86s to begin the process of getting them security clearances. Unless I'm mistaken, Trump's lawyers all told the courts that they had.

So, my question is why would the DOJ indict anyone - much less a leading presidential candidate - if they are not ready to go to trial? If they could not convict if the trial started tomorrow, how can they assure us that they can get conviction in a trial that starts almost five months from now?

It appears that we are now at the point of: if the DOJ were to press to go to trial in August, they are rushing it to prevent Trump from having time to prepare, but if they give him three additional months, it's because they are not ready.

It is very weird that they are charging Nauta, and even weirder that they are trying them at the same time.

Why is that weird? It makes much more sense to try them together than to go through all of the pre-trial motions, go through jury selection, have opening arguments, present all of the evidence of Trump conspiring with Nauta, get a verdict, then go through pre-trial motions, go through jury selection, having opening arguments, and present all of the exact same evidence of Nauta conspiring with Trump.

but my best guess is that the prosecution is simply grasping at the latest straw they see dangling in front of them.

That's fine. My best guess is that they have evidence (some of which was shown--in the form of pictures from Nauta) in the indictment that Nauta participated in the hiding of documents with Trump, so they are prosecuting him. If he was willing to provide testimony or evidence against his co-conspirator, they would have given him some kind of leniency, but if he chose not to, then they would prosecute him.

If prosecutors arrest a group of gangbangers who they believe participated in a drive-by, would you consider it "grasping at straws" if the prosecuted them all if none of them would testify against the others?

So, question for those who were sure the trial would be speedy: The prosecution took ten months from the Mar-a-Lago raid until the indictment. Now they ask for nearly six months of additional time. So that is one and one- third year to prosecute based on evidence of crimes that they assured the magistrate they would find when they asked for the warrant.

The reason it took ten months from the search until the indictment was because they were working with the grand jury, presenting evidence, securing witnesses and having them testify, etc. Are you tying to imply that the DOJ just sat around waiting those 10 months, not doing anything, so they could drop the indictment at this time?

I think, that in such a high profile case, having a trial around 6 months after indictment IS a speedy trial.

As December 11th approaches, if Team Trump finds itself not yet prepared for the defense, how much time should they be allowed?

Why wouldn't they be prepared after this long time? Does Trump want a speedy trial or not? Is it the DOJ that is delaying, or is it going to be Trump? If Trump's team claims they are not prepared in December, are you going to treat them the same way you are treating the DOJ, and saying that there is something up with Trump's defense wanting a delay?

 

[superchuck500]

So, question for those who were sure the trial would be speedy: The prosecution took ten months from the Mar-a-Lago raid until the indictment. Now they ask for nearly six months of additional time. So that is one and one- third year to prosecute based on evidence of crimes that they assured the magistrate they would find when they asked for the warrant.

As December 11th approaches, if Team Trump finds itself not yet prepared for the defense, how much time should they be allowed?

Everyone knew the August trial date was just how Cannon manages her docket and that it would be continued. And yes, almost certainly the defense would likely to be granted additional time (and I think it’s fair to expect that).

I did some quick looking last week and trials of multiple felonies in federal court on average appear to begin anywhere from 10 to even 18 months after arraignment. Every case has its own time issues and every court has its own docket issues. But a December trial on a June arrest would certainly be speedy relative to the average.

 

[superchuck500]

And also keep in mind that the defense will file a response to the motion to continue in the coming days. That will give us a sense of whether the defense wants a sooner trial or agrees with December or wants later. I suspect it won’t be sooner.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Not really embarassing. They even state in the filing that Trump's attorneys have not all submitted their SF-86s to begin the process of getting them security clearances. Unless I'm mistaken, Trump's lawyers all told the courts that they had.

If I recall correctly, Trump's lawyers have not yet told the court that they all submitted their SF-86's.

The SF-86 is form that has 133+ pages, nearly all of which are densely packed with very personal questions. It ends with this day brightener:

https://www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/sf86.pdf

Any layman would want to take their time in filling it out, carefully researching dates and places, names and contact information. Any lawyer would see this as an invitation to self-incrimination, or a falsifying document charge.

A lawyer for Trump would have to suspect that the DOJ is hoping for a slip-up that they can turn into a criminal case against that lawyer.

Not to say that Team Trump is thus overburdened, it's part of the process. I'm just saying that it was easily predictable by the DOJ that the forms would need to be filled out, and that they would take time. They could have sent the forms to Team Trump ten months ago, right after the raid, and that process could be finished by now.

Or, if they decided to leave such details until after the indictment to maintain the element of surprise, they should have asked for the continuance as soon as the judge was assigned. It appears that they waited for Team Trump to ask for the continuance and got caught with their pants down.

It appears that we are now at the point of: if the DOJ were to press to go to trial in August, they are rushing it to prevent Trump from having time to prepare, but if they give him three additional months, it's because they are not ready.

I'm not sure I ever expressed the first claim. Far as I know, I've been swimming against the stream by saying that the trial will not be as quick as many on here seem to assume. *EDIT* I probably said something to the effect that if DOJ were to push for an early trial date, Trump would have every right to ask for more time. If I gave the impression that I thought the DOJ would actually do that, I misstated my position.

I fully expected and expect both sides to want it to go as slowly as possible. Unless the judge bucks both sides on that, it could turn into a slow motion farce.

Why is that weird? It makes much more sense to try them together than to go through all of the pre-trial motions, go through jury selection, have opening arguments, present all of the evidence of Trump conspiring with Nauta, get a verdict, then go through pre-trial motions, go through jury selection, having opening arguments, and present all of the exact same evidence of Nauta conspiring with Trump.

I'm no legal expert, so you may be right. I've always thought people are tried together when they committed the same crime at the same time together. Like "two men entered the bank with guns drawn, robbed it of two large bags of cash, and fled the scene, only to be caught by a passing group of policemen." Obviously, Trump and Nauta could not have been equal partners committing the same crimes.

Anything the prosecution or defense does in any criminal case is for strategic reasons. I don't get the strategy, unless it is hoping to force Nauta to turn on Trump.

That's fine. My best guess is that they have evidence (some of which was shown--in the form of pictures from Nauta) in the indictment that Nauta participated in the hiding of documents with Trump, so they are prosecuting him. If he was willing to provide testimony or evidence against his co-conspirator, they would have given him some kind of leniency, but if he chose not to, then they would prosecute him.

Ok, that answers my implied question above about what you think their strategy is. Almost the same as mine, except yours is a follow through on their previous statement to Nauta that if he did not turn on Trump, he would suffer the same fate. Would you agree that the offer of leniency will likely remain on the table until the prosecution rests?

I'm not sure Nauta would see having the same fate as Trump as a bad thing. In virtually every scenario, other than jail or prison time, he comes out smelling like the proverbial rose, continuing to live the life in Mar-a-Lago, but now enjoying celebrity status and Trump's gratitude for the loyalty, which he values more than anything else.

If prosecutors arrest a group of gangbangers who they believe participated in a drive-by, would you consider it "grasping at straws" if the prosecuted them all if none of them would testify against the others?

No, that is similar to my bank robbery scenario above that I said makes sense.

It seems that it will only slow the prosecution down if they try to prove that in each of the 37 counts, Nauta was by Trump's side, like Roark and Tattoo.

The reason it took ten months from the search until the indictment was because they were working with the grand jury, presenting evidence, securing witnesses and having them testify, etc. Are you tying to imply that the DOJ just sat around waiting those 10 months, not doing anything, so they could drop the indictment at this time?

Not at all. My point is the opposite, in fact. They took ten months to sort and go through evidence after having assured the magistrate signing the warrant that they were confident of what they would find. Therefore, Team Trump must - if the trial is fair - also be allowed to take as much time as they need to also go through the documents.

The prosecutors decided how much prep time they needed. Would you agree that the same should go for the defense?

All part of my over-arching argument I've been making that while the trial will certainly interfere with the election, it is unlikely to be over with a guilty verdict before the voting date. Therefore, the American people will be the "jury of his peers," who will decide his fitness for president. If he wins, the case ends with a pardon.

In fact - if Biden wanted to show himself to be the bigger man, he would pardon Trump in the same speech in which he concedes. Trump could do the same for Biden, and Biden's family, and the country can move on.

I think, that in such a high profile case, having a trial around 6 months after indictment IS a speedy trial.

Federal rules requires a trial within 70 days in order to honor the "speedy trial" clause. But the rules also allow for delays by the defense or the prosecution to stop that clock, rendering that clause of the constitution meaningless. I doubt it would ever be challenged because defense attorneys are usually the ones wanting to delay.

So I can't agree that six months would be a "speedy trial," but it would be much faster than I expect the trial to start. Not saying you, but posters on here seem to not take into account that Trump's Team can act also, now that there is an actual indictment. They can ask for a continuance beyond the December 11th date.

What is your opinion of that particular time frame for the trial to start: mid December?

Why wouldn't they be prepared after this long time?

This long time of what, though?

All this long time, we have been told that Trump was in big trouble for having classified documents in his home, and now the charges turn out to be something else. Team Trump has had no access to the evidence all this long time. Their prep times starts when they see the charges and get access to the evidence.

Does Trump want a speedy trial or not?

No he does not want a speedy trial (I don't think). I've been saying that Trump will want the trial to be delayed as long as possible and to take as long as possible, like most criminal defendants.

Is it the DOJ that is delaying, or is it going to be Trump?

It is the DOJ currently, but it is going to be Trump, as I have said many times.

If Trump's team claims they are not prepared in December, are you going to treat them the same way you are treating the DOJ, and saying that there is something up with Trump's defense wanting a delay?

No, because it is the DOJ who had the obligation to be fully prepared before they indicted. What do you think that the DOJ needs six months to do at this point, and why did they not do it already?

I'm not treating the DOJ in any bad way by pointing that out. I have in the past predicted that they DOJ will try to time its case so that it presents most or all of its evidence right up until election day so that Trump has no time to offer his defense before the vote. So far, they are on track to do that.

Whether saying that would be excoriating the DOJ or congratulating them on their cleverness is up to each individual.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Everyone knew the August trial date was just how Cannon manages her docket and that it would be continued. And yes, almost certainly the defense would likely to be granted additional time (and I think it’s fair to expect that).

I did some quick looking last week and trials of multiple felonies in federal court on average appear to begin anywhere from 10 to even 18 months after arraignment. Every case has its own time issues and every court has its own docket issues. But a December trial on a June arrest would certainly be speedy relative to the average.

Agreed. Best case scenario then is that the trial starts right as primary season is taking off. Worst case is that it is not even started by the time of the general election.

This is destined to be the most successful election interference operation in the history of the U.S., dwarfing even Joe Kennedy's purchase of Illinois from LCN.

Did you see any stats on average length of the trials in multiple felony federal cases?