EX-PRESIDENT INDICTED

M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Samurai
yes I know it's a right wing rag but three guesses why Trump hired her, the first two don't count ;) .......

Oddly enough, they left this gaff by her out of their report:

“I think that everybody was made aware that he lost the election . . ."

Trump would be well advised to keep this woman as far away from the court and the cameras as possible.

It's often said that the definition of a gaffe is when a politician accidentally tells the truth. Perhaps the definition of gaffe should include a Trump lawyer accidentally telling the truth.

Edit: Added Trump to "Perhaps the definition of gaffe should include a Trump lawyer accidentally telling the truth."
 
Last edited:
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
@Mr._Clark

Thanks for the discussion about the consequences of taking an advice of counsel defense with regard to waiving attorney-client privilege. All the crime shows I've seen on TV never mentioned that.

A few more thoughts in regard to the intent issue, aka The Easter Bunny …

I know from those murder mystery crime shows that various degrees of murder charges exist, premeditated murder (first degree murder) and several non-premeditated degrees of murder (second degree, manslaughter, etc.). With the latest charges against Trump, conspiracy, fraud, or obstruction, does the law distinguish between premeditation and non-premeditation?

Does intent even matter? Or, is this yet another attempt by Trump's crack 3rd string legal team to deflect and confuse?
 
isolar8001

isolar8001

Audioholic General
Of course he believed the election was stolen and rigged...he even said so (and typed so on public records) about 40 times since yesterday after he left the courthouse.
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
Of course he believed the election was stolen and rigged...he even said so (and typed so on public records) about 40 times since yesterday after he left the courthouse.
He said the election was stolen and rigged, well before it took place in November 2020.

Evidence of intent?
 
isolar8001

isolar8001

Audioholic General
He said the election was stolen and rigged, well before it took place in November 2020.

Evidence of intent?
He sure did....can you imagine being one of his lawyers and telling him to keep his mouth and hands quiet and still ?
No wonder his legal team looks like Mr Haney's Hooterville Law Pardners.
 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Samurai
@Mr._Clark

Thanks for the discussion about the consequences of taking an advice of counsel defense with regard to waiving attorney-client privilege. All the crime shows I've seen on TV never mentioned that.

A few more thoughts in regard to the intent issue, aka The Easter Bunny …

I know from those murder mystery crime shows that various degrees of murder charges exist, premeditated murder (first degree murder) and several non-premeditated degrees of murder (second degree, manslaughter, etc.). With the latest charges against Trump, conspiracy, fraud, or obstruction, does the law distinguish between premeditation and non-premeditation?

Does intent even matter? Or, is this yet another attempt by Trump's crack 3rd string legal team to deflect and confuse?
The short answer is that intent most definitely matters, but the federal laws in the most recent indictment do not have the traditional varying degrees of culpability based on different mental states.

The following is likely to be sleep-inducing, but I find it helpful to keep the basics of common law crimes in mind when evaluating a criminal law, even if the criminal law in question is not based on common law.

There were initially no federal criminal laws. All criminal laws were initially state laws, and these were by and large English common law

>>>After the 1776 American Revolution, one of the first legislative acts undertaken by each of the newly independent states was to adopt a "reception statute" that gave legal effect to the existing body of English common law to the extent that the legislation or the constitution had not explicitly rejected English law.<<< (Yeah, I know, it's wiki, but wiki happens to be correct in this case)


English common law and early U.S. criminal law generally follow the following basic formula:

>>>In general, every crime involves three elements: first, the act or conduct (actus reus); second, the individual’s mental state at the time of the act (mens rea); and third, the causation between the act and the effect (typically either proximate causation or but-for causation).<<<

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/criminal_law

Note: Not all crimes require causation. Attempted crimes may carry penalties that are similar to successful crimes. The basic ideas is that someone who (for example) tries to murder someone but fails because he's a poor shot shouldn't escape liability.

In classic criminal law structures, different mental states carried different degrees of culpability (punishment) even if the act and causation are identical.

Here are the most common mental states:

>>>Most states use the MPC's classification for various mentes reae. The MPC organizes and defines culpable states of mind into four hierarchical categories:
  1. acting purposely - the defendant had an underlying conscious object to act
  2. acting knowingly - the defendant is practically certain that the conduct will cause a particular result
  3. acting recklessly - The defendant consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustified risk
  4. acting negligently - The defendant was not aware of the risk, but should have been aware of the risk
Thus, a crime committed purposefully would carry a more severe punishment than if the offender acted knowingly, recklessly, or negligently.<<<


Federal criminal laws, in contrast to state criminal law, is not based on English common law. It is almost completely based on laws passed by congress (keeping in mind that the federal government only has power to pass laws if such power is given to it under the constitution, whereas the states have general authority).

For the most part, The Crimes Act of 1790 was the first significant federal criminal law.


Federal criminal laws are written by congress and they do not necessarily follow the classic state criminal law scheme outlined above. All criminal laws (state and federal) are constrained to some degree by constitutional rights of citizens, but congress is generally free to specify a higher mental state requirement.

Crime shows are not necessarily "wrong" but the traditional mental state scheme is much more typical of state criminal law. Federal criminal laws tend to be very specific with regards to mental state, and the mental state requirement of any given federal criminal law may include requirements that do not appear in the context of state criminal laws.

Where I'm going with this is that the federal criminal laws listed in the latest Trump indictment have fairly specific mental state requirements. Here's what the DOJ says about Section 371:

>>>The intent required for a conspiracy to defraud the government is that the defendant possessed the intent (a) to defraud, (b) to make false statements or representations to the government or its agencies in order to obtain property of the government, or that the defendant performed acts or made statements that he/she knew to be false, fraudulent or deceitful to a government agency, which disrupted the functions of the agency or of the government. It is sufficient for the government to prove that the defendant knew the statements were false or fraudulent when made. The government is not required to prove the statements ultimately resulted in any actual loss to the government of any property or funds, only that the defendant's activities impeded or interfered with legitimate governmental functions. See United States v. Puerto, 730 F.2d 627 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 847 (1984); United States v. Tuohey, 867 F.2d 534 (9th Cir. 1989); United States v. Sprecher, 783 F. Supp. 133, 156 (S.D.N.Y. 1992)(þit is sufficient that the defendant engaged in acts that interfered with or obstructed a lawful governmental function by deceit, craft, trickery or by means that were dishonest"), modified on other grounds, 988 F.2d 318 (2d Cir. 1993).<<< (emphasis added)


Basically, this law only defines one mental state. I have not exhaustively reviewed the other federal crimes in the most recent indictment, but I do not see any graduations of mental state in those laws.

Here's an example of a statement from the most recent indictment:

1691209402153.png


If Trump conspired with people to make knowingly false statements to the effect that 10,000 dead people voted, I can't see how Trump can avoid the intent requirement "It is sufficient for the government to prove that the defendant knew the statements were false or fraudulent when made." See United States v. Puerto, 730 F.2d 627 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 847 (1984); United States v. Tuohey, 867 F.2d 534 (9th Cir. 1989); United States v. Sprecher, 783 F. Supp. 133, 156 (S.D.N.Y. 1992)

Who gives a flying f*ck if Trump believes in the Easter Bunny?

The prosecution rests.
 
Last edited:
cpp

cpp

Audioholic Ninja
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
@Mr._Clark

Thanks for that explanation. Lengthy or not, it explains the basics of what I didn't know. I still think the advance planning needed for Trump's election interference scheme could not be done without prior intent to defraud.
Who gives a flying f*ck if Trump believes in the Easter Bunny?
John Eastman is the Easter Bunny. He hides his long ears under that stupid looking cowboy hat.
 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Samurai
@Mr._Clark

Thanks for that explanation. Lengthy or not, it explains the basics of what I didn't know. I still think the advance planning needed for Trump's election interference scheme could not be done without prior intent to defraud.
John Eastman is the Easter Bunny. He hides his long ears under that stupid looking cowboy hat.
I wondered if anyone would pick up on the alliteration.

Many federal crimes have a specific intent element. This is basically the traditional knowledge mens rea (the defendant is practically certain that the conduct will cause a particular result) but it further requires that the defendant knew that the action was not legal. The basic idea of the advice of counsel defense is that if a defendant was told by an attorney that the particular act was legal, the government didn't prove that the defendant knew it was not legal.

For what it's worth, the law (18 USC 793) at issue in the Trump classified documents case does have sections reciting different mens rea requirements, but these are coupled with somewhat different acts in each section. In other words, this law does not follow the traditional common law scheme with three elements (act, mental state, and causation) where identical acts and causation result in different levels of culpability depending on the mental state that is proven by the prosecutor.

Section 793 is fairly complex and each of sections (a)-(f) is somewhat different, and stands alone as a crime.


For example, section (e) recites "Whoever having unauthorized possession of . . . willfully communicates . . . the same to any person not entitled to receive it " whereas section (f) recites ""Whoever . . . having lawful possession or control of . . . through gross negligence permits the same to be . . . delivered to anyone in violation of his trust . . . " I've deleted quite a bit of the wording in an effort to emphasize some of the differences between these sections.

In general, congress has written criminal laws from a clean slate and many are a hodge podge of specific and broad elements.

The following is just my opinion, I'm sure others would disagree. Some federal criminal laws are quite broad which could render the law unconstitutional if it were to be construed literally to cover all activities falling within the language of the law. In general, federal courts have been reluctant to strike down criminal laws as unconstitutional based on application of the law to specific case so the courts tend say "the law cannot apply to the facts of this case because it would be unconstitutional if it did." Striking down the law entirely is drastic because it would leave the government without a way to prosecute crimes falling within the language of the statute in situations where the law is clearly not unconstitutional.

Basically, this appears to be part of the reason the DOJ is reluctant to prosecute seditious conspiracy. It's a big club, and the DOJ does not want risk having it struck down. Again, this is just my overall impression. I have no direct knowledge of the internal DOJ decision making process.
 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Samurai
The fact that John Eastman is one of the co-conspirators reminds me of Eric Herschmann's advice to Eastman:

>>>"I'm going to give you the best free legal advice you're ever getting in your life: Get a great f-ing criminal defense lawyer. You're going to need it"<<<


Here's a video of Herschmann:


On the video Herschmann says that he said "Are you out of your f'ing mind? . . . I only want to hear two words coming out of your mouth from now on: orderly transition. . . I don't want to hear any other f'ing words coming out of your mouth . . . Now I'm going to give you the best free legal advice you're ever getting in your life: Get a great f-ing criminal defense lawyer. You're going to need it"

Herschmann was also not fond of Jeffrey Clark, another co-conspirator:

>>>And when he finished discussing what he planned on doing, I said, “Good, fucking”—excuse me, sorry, “Effing a-hole. Congratulations, you just admitted your first step or act you’d take as attorney general would be committing a felony and violating Rule 6(e). You’re clearly the right candidate for this job.”<<<


Herschmann defended Trump in the first impeachment so he is not some sort of commy out to get Trump.
 
Last edited:
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
@Mr._Clark
John Eastman is the Easter Bunny. He hides his long ears under that stupid looking cowboy hat.
Besides John Eastman, the only other candidate for Easter Bunny was Lindsey Graham (according to anonymous Washington insider info). When he tried on the furry Easter Bunny suit, everyone in the Oval Office exploded in laughter. It wasn't a good look. Apparently, Trump laughed so hard he squirt Diet Coke out of his nose. So John Eastman and his cowboy hat won without serious opposition.

It seems like yet another case of group-think. No one there could imagine how Eastman's crack-pot idea could fail. He would have benefited if someone brainstormed or trouble shot his idea.
 
Last edited:
Auditor55

Auditor55

Audioholic General
Of course he believed the election was stolen and rigged...he even said so (and typed so on public records) about 40 times since yesterday after he left the courthouse.
Even with that, he's going to be the Republican nominee and ultimately beat Brandon in the general election in 2024.
 
isolar8001

isolar8001

Audioholic General
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Jedi
Even with that, he's going to be the Republican nominee and ultimately beat Brandon in the general election in 2024.
Yeah other gangsters have ruled from jail, drumphy could try too. Be a shame if this country is so stupid as to elect drumph again, but it wouldn't surprise me otoh.
 
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Seriously, I have no life.
Wonder where they found a muzzle big enough for Fat Donny's mouth.....
At least they can get him gloves in the pre-teen girls section.
...
I wonder how many "get out of jail" card will he get before being locked up until the trial.
Hope this is the last time.
 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Samurai
Even with that, he's going to be the Republican nominee and ultimately beat Brandon in the general election in 2024.
There's a good chance he will win the Republican nomination, but (politically) he'll be a dead man walking after that.

Trump is the first president since Herbert Hoover to lose the presidency, the house, and the senate.


He just keeps losing and losing and losing.

Edit: made it clear he's politically a dead man walking.
 
Last edited:
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Samurai
Wonder where they found a muzzle big enough for Fat Donny's mouth.....
At least they can get him gloves in the pre-teen girls section.

I'm wondering if this news report is accurate.

It's possible Courtlistener.com has not been updated, but it lists the following orders today:

>>>MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: It is hereby ORDERED that by 5:00 PM on August 7, 2023, Defendant shall file a response to the government's 10 Motion for Protective Order, stating Defendant's position on the Motion. If Defendant disagrees with any portion of the government's proposed Protective Order, ECF No. 10-1, his response shall include a revised version of that Protective Order with any modifications in redline. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 08/05/2023. (lcss)<<<

>>>MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: Defendant's 11 Motion for Extension of Time is hereby DENIED. Defendant may continue to confer with the government regarding its proposed protective order before or after the August 7, 2023 5:00 PM deadline for his response. The court will determine whether to schedule a hearing to discuss the proposed protective order after reviewing Defendant's response and, if included, his revised proposed protective order with modifications in redline. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 08/05/2023. (lcss)<<<


In other words, these orders state that Trump's lawyers must respond by 5:00 pm on August 7. Trump's request for a delay was denied.
 
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top