Trump Indictment ( includes NY AG and Fed documents case ) (3 Viewers)

[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

 

[MT15]

Are they really going to get a conviction from what a one-word interjection could very well mean?

Based on the above, it seems as though it is the this-time-we-finally-got-him types grasping at straws.

I think the "Trump is a conman!" line would play much better if it were followed up with, "so you should vote for this very honest Democrat that is running against him!" As long as the implied follow us is "so vote for Biden, there is no other real choice, such accusations are meaningless.

Nope, no need to rely on a “wow”. Smith will have deposed everyone who was in the room at that time by now. He knows exactly what Trump actually did.

We don’t know what Trump actually did yet. But whether he actually showed it to anyone isn’t material to this case anyway. It simply doesn’t matter.

However, if Smith has evidence that Trump was showing off that document to some random people at Bedminster, then he could charge Trump with further crimes in NJ.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Nope, no need to rely on a “wow”. Smith will have deposed everyone who was in the room at that time by now. He knows exactly what Trump actually did.

I disagree that Smith has already deposed everyone in the room by now. Depositions are done with attorneys from both sides allowed to ask questions, and the defendant allowed to be present even if in custody.

Very doubtful that could have happened already.

He may well have taken sworn statements from them.

The sworn statements cannot be admitted, so there will be depositions, no doubt.

Such depositions will happen, and will be yet another factor slowing the trial to a crawl. I'm not sure if you have weighed in on how long the trial will take to complete, so I don't know if I should even mention that.

We don’t know what Trump actually did yet. But whether he actually showed it to anyone isn’t material to this case anyway. It simply doesn’t matter.

We agree, then, that the audio proves nothing in particular that would incriminate Trump.

However, if Smith has evidence that Trump was showing off that document to some random people at Bedminster, then he could charge Trump with further crimes in NJ.

Yes, he can literally charge Trump with as many crimes as he likes, right up until the moment he is canned by either Trump or DeSantis.

 

[MT15]

Okay, so Smith has sworn statements and my point still remains that he knows exactly what happened in that room by this point.

He may just decide to call them as witnesses. No need for depositions then.

You just put words in my mouth. Which you complain about, lol. I said whether he showed the document to people at Bedminster didn’t matter to this case, because he isn’t currently be charged for that. That’s far far different from saying the audio doesn’t incriminate him. Ridiculously so.

That audio definitely incriminates Trump for distribution. It’s a separate crime, as I understand it, and would be charged in NJ not FL due to the location of the crime. We don’t know if Smith feels he has a case for distribution or not, but this audio goes a long way towards that case.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Okay, so Smith has sworn statements and my point still remains that he knows exactly what happened in that room by this point.

He may just decide to call them as witnesses. No need for depositions then.

You just put words in my mouth.

Which you complain about, lol.

You're right. I should have put a question mark at least or just said "I agree."

I said whether he showed the document to people at Bedminster didn’t matter to this case, because he isn’t currently be charged for that. That’s far far different from saying the audio doesn’t incriminate him. Ridiculously so.

Fair.

That audio definitely incriminates Trump for distribution. It’s a separate crime, as I understand it, and would be charged in NJ not FL due to the location of the crime. We don’t know if Smith feels he has a case for distribution or not, but this audio goes a long way towards that case.

"Distribution?" We can't know from that audio whether he showed them the document, gave them the document, or simply waived it around.

Good luck finding precedents for a former president being charged with a crime for off-the-record statements to a jounalist, while talking about something he had in his hand.

 

[MT15]

You're right. I should have put a question mark at least or just said "I agree."


Fair.

"Distribution?" We can't know from that audio whether he showed them the document, gave them the document, or simply waived it around.

Good luck finding precedents for a former president being charged with a crime for off-the-record statements to a jounalist, while talking about something he had in his hand.

Oh, there are no precedents for this, because we’ve never had a president act so irresponsibly with government documents before.

Yes, I would imagine the audio alone wouldn’t do it, although I think it’s pretty obvious that he is showing them what the document says. But I would think Smith would want sworn testimony from the people in the room to go along with it. We will see if he decides to prosecute it or not. Impossible to know that right now.

 

[FullMonte]

They take everyting he says hook line and sinker. Even when they don't believe it, they make up stuff why it shouldn't matter, or the famous "witch hunt"..;lol .. He has never done anything wrong, but everyone else is guilty of everythign else..

I think the issue now is that they are at the point where they have dug in so deep that they are too embarrassed to admit the truth.

 

[FullMonte]

He is gonna plea deal his way thru this. He doesnt want to see inside a court. at all. He will lost the General Election- in part because of this, but also because he simply isnt fit to be POTUS- temperament and intelligence- he lacks both. ( but does really appeal to the same type of folks- not a coincidence )

I don't see a plea deal. The prosecutors have little incentive to offer a deal, as it seems they have a pretty solid case. They have great incentive NOT to offer a deal, because about two seconds after signing the deal, Trump begins his "This hoax was so weak, they were afraid to go to trial" tour. Also, I think we are at the point where a plea agreement would require Trump to plead guilty to at least SOME serious charges, and not something like 1 count of obstruction with a suspended sentence.

Speaking of sentencing, here is a really good explanation of how much time Trump COULD be facing, should he be convicted.

 

[FullMonte]

Yes, he can literally charge Trump with as many crimes as he likes, right up until the moment he is canned by either Trump or DeSantis.

It's not quite that easy. Trump/DeSantis can't remove Smith. Only the Attorney General can, and he can only be removed "for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies." The Attorney General would also need to notify Smith, in writing, of the specific reason for his removal.

"We don't want you to continue with this case," does not meet any of those criteria.

 

[MT15]

It's not quite that easy. Trump/DeSantis can't remove Smith. Only the Attorney General can, and he can only be removed "for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies." The Attorney General would also need to notify Smith, in writing, of the specific reason for his removal.

"We don't want you to continue with this case," does not meet any of those criteria.

You are totally correct, but neither of these two wannabe strong men will care. They will just do it. They care nothing about the rule of law or our legal institutions.

 

[LA - L.A.]

I disagree that Smith has already deposed everyone in the room by now. Depositions are done with attorneys from both sides allowed to ask questions, and the defendant allowed to be present even if in custody.

It's my understanding that in a criminal trial there aren't any depositions, which may be what you're getting at.

As I understand it, instead of depositions, the prosecution uses a grand jury to ask people questions while they are under oath. It's also my understanding that those sworn statements are admissible when asking for a search warrant and other investigative tools that require judicial oversight.

I don't know if the grand jury statements are admissible in a trial, but I think that if the same person changes their testimony during a trial, then their sworn grand jury statements can be used as evidence they committed perjury.

So a witness that was questioned during a grand jury runs the risk of being indicted for perjury if they give conflicting testimony in a trial.

Superchuck is the resident legal expert and I hope he lets us know what's what on that.

Some are reporting that Smith questioned everyone in the room with Trump while they were under oath in a grand jury.

 

[Snarky Sack]

It's not quite that easy. Trump/DeSantis can't remove Smith. Only the Attorney General can, and he can only be removed "for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies."

You just described the senior leadership of the DOJ.

The Attorney General would also need to notify Smith, in writing, of the specific reason for his removal.

"We don't want you to continue with this case," does not meet any of those criteria.

How about,

"Mr. Smith,

You are hereby removed as special counsel and terminated from the Department of Justice for the following reasons:

1) You are a corrupt partisan hack.
2) You are a flipping corrupt partisan hack, so I don't need a second reason.

Turn in all department issued devices and keys before you leave - unwiped if you please."

Sincerely,

Ashley Moody
Attorney General "

Someone else can take the Trump criminal case long enough to move for dismissal with prejudice.

 

[Snarky Sack]

It's my understanding that in a criminal trial there aren't any depositions, which may be what you're getting at.

No, sir. Oddly enough, I was getting at exactly what I said.

As I understand it, instead of depositions, the prosecution uses a grand jury to ask people questions while they are under oath. It's also my understanding that those sworn statements are admissible when asking for a search warrant and other investigative tools that require judicial oversight.

That happens, but it is not instead of depositions.

I don't know if the grand jury statements are admissible in a trial, but I think that if the same person changes their testimony during a trial, then their sworn grand jury statements can be used as evidence they committed perjury. So a witness that was questioned during a grand jury runs the risk of being indicted for perjury if they give conflicting testimony in a trial.

I'm sure that the part about changing their testimony is true. That's why prosecutors present the minimum of testimony to get an indictment.

Superchuck is the resident legal expert and I hope he lets us know what's what on that.

Some are reporting that Smith questioned everyone in the room with Trump while they were under oath in a grand jury.

@superchuck500 , what say you?

 

[DaveXA]

You just described the senior leadership of the DOJ.

How about,

"Mr. Smith,

You are hereby removed as special counsel and terminated from the Department of Justice for the following reasons:

1) You are a corrupt partisan hack.
2) You are a flipping corrupt partisan hack, so I don't need a second reason.

Turn in all department issued devices and keys before you leave - unwiped if you please."

Sincerely,

Ashley Moody
Attorney General "

Someone else can take the Trump criminal case long enough to move for dismissal with prejudice.

Thankfully, none of that will happen.

 

[LA - L.A.]

@superchuck500 , what say you?

I look forward to hearing Superchuck's thoughts on everything I said.

 

[FullMonte]

You just described the senior leadership of the DOJ.

How about,

"Mr. Smith,

You are hereby removed as special counsel and terminated from the Department of Justice for the following reasons:

1) You are a corrupt partisan hack.
2) You are a flipping corrupt partisan hack, so I don't need a second reason.

Neither of which are “specific reasons.”

What you are describing is the exact reason the rules regarding a special counsel are the way they are.

It’s also the reason the Barr made Durham a special counsel. So that Bidens AG could not fire him.

 

[superchuck500]

No, sir. Oddly enough, I was getting at exactly what I said.





That happens, but it is not instead of depositions.

I'm sure that the part about changing their testimony is true. That's why prosecutors present the minimum of testimony to get an indictment.

@superchuck500 , what say you?

If you read the rule closely, it says that depositions in criminal trials are exceptional (not usual) and allowed where there’s a demonstrated need to preserve testimony for trial (because the witness won’t be available for live testimony and cross examination). A classic example is where a material witness has a chronic illness and may die before trial. But there can be other reasons (perhaps a service member is about to deploy).

Grand jury testimony is indeed sworn and subject to perjury. The defendant is provided transcripts of the grand jury testimony. Yes, if a material witness changes their testimony at trial, yes it will be pointed out by the party that is harmed by the change in testimony and it will (a) discredit the testimony and (b) could potentially (but not necessarily) support perjury charges - just depends on the circumstances.

Keep in mind also that federal investigation interviews with witnesses are also subject to perjury (e.g. “one count of lying to federal investigators”).

 

[Lapaz]

Republicans don't get derided enough for the Trump fanaticism. They made fun of Democrats over Obama. Obama's adulation, outside of the black community, pales in comparison. It's almost reached "Have you taken our lord and savior Donald into your heart?"

What makes it even better? He is everything Republicans say they are against: Confessed sexual assaulter, thrice divorced, previously a democrat, funded plenty of abortions, soon to be convicted felon.

It's as if an entire party never graduated from High School, and simply want to vote for the "cool guy".

If adulation for Obama is a bad thing, then I’m very bad. Obama was the epitome of what all of our presidents should strive for. He was classy, intelligent, high character, charming, hard working, educated, successful, empathic, physically fit, had a sense of humor, wonderful father and husband, respected the rule of law, respected throughout the world, and beloved by our allies. He was the best of America. Trump is the worst of America. Such a wild swing in the posture of the presidency. Biden is much closer to Obama.

 

[MT15]

Rudy is “in discussions” with Smith.