INDICTED

[Swerd]

Just a reminder …
Jack Smith, the DOJ federal prosecutor in the Mar-A-Lago case also prosecuted the Harold T. Martin case in 2016/17. Martin pleaded guilty and is now serving a 9-year sentence.

Harold T. Martin - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Trell]

Once again Republicans have an opportunity to distance themselves from Trump and yet again they are on the verge of squandering it.

Leaving aside the responses from most of the Republican candidates vying to be the presidential nominee (a "circling the wagons" response in defence of Trump), there are those writing article in newspapers defending him even after the indictment chargers are released to the public: The so-called "serious" or "grown-up" Republicans.

One example is the Republican Washington Post contributor Gary Abernathy concluding his opinion piece with the following. So another Trump apologist come hell or high water, and there is not any daylight between him and people like Kari Lake and MTG, except better writing.

>>>But Trump’s fate should be decided by voters, not the Justice Department — certainly not the Biden Justice Department — or the courts. Based on what we know now, the underlying offense does not warrant the national upheaval that comes with charging a former president and the likely 2024 Republican nominee.

This indictment may buoy Trump’s enemies, but it is not good for the country.<<<

 

[cpp]

Candidates, they have a great chance right here to move away from the narcissistic salesman which could strengthen their position, but noooo!. Lets defend Trump and blame Biden for Trumps stupidity and disrespect for the law. If Trump would have said up front after leaving office, don't forget about the documents at my home, none of this would have ever happened. But no, Trumpo felt he knew the law ( Presidential Records Act ) better than anyone else and here he is. Stupid is as stupid does. Its going to be really interesting how all of this plays out in a court of law, which could take freaking years.

 

[Trell]

A counter-point to the Republican whining about indicting Trump, much less arrest him.

Nicola Sturgeon released after arrest in Scottish National Party funding probe

Police Scotland say Sturgeon released ‘without charge pending further investigation’ after being held for more than seven hours.

www.politico.eu

 

[mtrycrafts]

So just in case you have returned from vacation to Mars ...

Mars? I visited the outer planets. Much more peaceful but those rings can be too much excitement for me.

 

[Dude#1279435]

Mars? I visited the outer planets. Much more peaceful but those rings can be too much excitement for me.

Them rings sure are pretty, and the aliens are nice too.

 

[Mr._Clark]

Guess I don't really understand why gross negligence would even be a consideration? Wouldn't that only apply if he did not know he had documents, or he was so dense he didn't know it was a crime to begin with???

I was attempting to highlight what I believe is a significant difference between the Clinton email fiasco and the Trump situation/indictment.

Yes, it has to do with mental state. Most criminal laws require the prosecutor to prove a “guilty mind” or “mens tea.”

In the Clinton case Comey said (in so many words) that Clinton should not be indicted because, although she was grossly negligent, there was no evidence she acted intentionally.

Trump was indicted on the basis that he willfully (basically with specific intent) mishandled defense information (and obstructed justice, lied to investigators, etc)

In other words, the government is saying there was no evidence of intent in the Clinton case, but there is evidence of intent in the Trump case.

Based on the Trump indictment there does appear to be plenty of evidence of intent that was not present in the Clinton case. This evidence largely consists of Trump’s own words.

When people say “but why wasn’t Clinton indicted?” it’s primarily because there wasn’t (solid) evidence of intent or obstruction in Clinton’s case but there is in Trump’s case.

To quote Bill Barr (Trump’s own Attorney General, who was heavily criticized for allegedly protecting Trump after the Mueller investigation) “He’s toast.”

 

[Dude#1279435]

I was attempting to highlight what I believe is a significant difference between the Clinton email fiasco and the Trump situation/indictment.

Yes, it has to do with mental state. Most criminal laws require the prosecutor to prove a “guilty mind” or “mens tea.”

In the Clinton case Comey said (in so many words) that Clinton should not be indicted because, although she was grossly negligent, there was no evidence she acted intentionally.

Trump was indicted on the basis that he willfully (basically with specific intent) mishandled defense information (and obstructed justice, lied to investigators, etc)

In other words, the government is saying there was no evidence of intent in the Clinton case, but there is evidence of intent in the Trump case.

Based on the Trump indictment there does appear to be plenty of evidence of intent that was not present in the Clinton case. This evidence largely consists of Trump’s own words.

When people say “but why wasn’t Clinton indicted?” it’s primarily because there wasn’t (solid) evidence of intent or obstruction in Clinton’s case but there is in Trump’s case.

To quote Bill Barr (Trump’s own Attorney General, who was heavily criticized for allegedly protecting Trump after the Mueller investigation) “He’s toast.”

I've gone back and forth. What's your take on the Mueller report???

 

[Mr._Clark]

I've gone back and forth. What's your take on the Mueller report???

That’s a big can of worms and the statute of limitations has run on potential criminal charges against Trump so it’s mostly moot at this point.

Basically, the evidence of a criminal conspiracy wasn’t strong largely because of intent issues. The obstruction evidence was quite strong.

Mueller couldn’t indict Trump because DOJ guidelines don’t permit a sitting president to be indicted. Thus, the only potential remedy at the time was impeachment and removal from office. Impeachment is of course conducted by the legislative branch and it is inherently political (I don’t mean to imply that’s bad, the Constitution intentionally puts impeachment power in the hands of elected officials rather than appointed judges because the remedy is removal from office not incarceration).

As we all know Trump was not removed from office. Honestly, I’m not really sure why the DOJ didn’t indict Trump for obstruction after he left office. There should have been a small window of time between Trump leaving office and the running of the statue of limitations. I suspect a grand jury would have indicted if they’d impaneled one. If someone wants to do a few google searches the answer is probably out there.

 

[Dude#1279435]

.....regarding defense and weapons capabilities of both the US and foreign countries; US nuclear programs; potential vulnerabilities of the US and its allies to military attack;

I shortened it and am reciting from TV. Like, WTH? Vendetta?

 

[Dude#1279435]

There apparently is a recording of Trump saying he has classified documents. Also a pool was drained, which flooded the video surveillance room.

 

[Mr._Clark]

That’s a big can of worms and the statute of limitations has run on potential criminal charges against Trump so it’s mostly moot at this point.

Basically, the evidence of a criminal conspiracy wasn’t strong largely because of intent issues. The obstruction evidence was quite strong.

Mueller couldn’t indict Trump because DOJ guidelines don’t permit a sitting president to be indicted. Thus, the only potential remedy at the time was impeachment and removal from office. Impeachment is of course conducted by the legislative branch and it is inherently political (I don’t mean to imply that’s bad, the Constitution intentionally puts impeachment power in the hands of elected officials rather than appointed judges because the remedy is removal from office not incarceration).

As we all know Trump was not removed from office. Honestly, I’m not really sure why the DOJ didn’t indict Trump for obstruction after he left office. There should have been a small window of time between Trump leaving office and the running of the statue of limitations. I suspect a grand jury would have indicted if they’d impaneled one. If someone wants to do a few google searches the answer is probably out there.

It turns out the Biden administration has been quietly letting the statute of limitations run on the activities in the Mueller report.

>>>Given only silence, the significant portion of the public who would like to see accountability for Trump’s abuses may conclude simply that yet another attorney general has decided to let the 45th president off the hook without giving it much thought. . . . At this stage, it is not clear whether a single Department of Justice attorney has reviewed the Mueller report since Trump left office. And it’s not clear either whether anyone will before the statutes of limitations run down.<<<

Where Is the Justice Department on the Trump Obstruction Offenses?

Some speculation as the statutes of limitations for offenses described in the Mueller report begin to run down.

www.lawfareblog.com

Letting the statute of limitations run out is tantamount to Biden giving Trump a pardon.

Those who believe Ford's pardon of Nixon was a travesty should be equally outraged at Biden for letting Trump off the hook on the Mueller report.

For those who believe the Biden administration indicted Trump in the Florida documents case for purely political reasons, it's hard to square that belief with the fact that Biden is letting Trump off the hook on the Mueller report. As far as I can tell, prior to the Florida indictment, the Biden administration had been treating Trump with the softest of kid gloves.

The lawfare blog lists 5 possible reasons the DOJ is letting the clock run out without filing charges. I'll add one more. Perhaps Trump pardoned himself before he left office. It is presently unclear if this would hold up in court and the Biden administration may be reluctant to test in court. A self-pardon appears to be highly unlikely. If nothing else, it's hard to believe it would not have been leaked.

 

[mtrycrafts]

There apparently is a recording of Trump saying he has classified documents. Also a pool was drained, which flooded the video surveillance room.

So that room floods every time the pool is drained?

How convenient.

 

[Swerd]

Trump has gone through an amazing amount of lawyers. Most have resigned rather than continue on with him. But some have jeopardized their law licenses, and may have committed felonies. Does anyone know of a list of these lawyers, when they resigned, and why?

I know of one attorney, John Dowd. Back in March of 2018, Dowd resigned from the team of lawyers preparing a defense for Trump in Mueller's Russia Probe. In a book, Bob Woodward claimed that Dowd had practiced with Trump in preparation for testifying under oath. He said that Dowd concluded that Trump couldn't avoid lying under oath. Dowd resigned a month or two later after this practice took place, and later denied Woodward's story. Woodward has stuck by his story.

Since then, I've lost count of how many lawyers and teams of lawyers have resigned, rather than continue working for Trump.

The recent Mar-A-Lago secret documents indictment relates that in May 2022, speaking with one of his attorneys, Trump suggested that the lawyer deep-six any problem documents. As the lawyer later recalled: “He made a funny motion as though – well okay why don’t you take them with you to your hotel room and if there’s anything really bad in there, like, you know, pluck it out.”

Yeah, I need a favor from you. Why don’t you commit a felony for me, and jeopardize your law license?

 

[mtrycrafts]

It turns out the Biden administration has been quietly letting the statute of limitations run on the activities in the Mueller report.

>>>Given only silence, the significant portion of the public who would like to see accountability for Trump’s abuses may conclude simply that yet another attorney general has decided to let the 45th president off the hook without giving it much thought. . . . At this stage, it is not clear whether a single Department of Justice attorney has reviewed the Mueller report since Trump left office. And it’s not clear either whether anyone will before the statutes of limitations run down.<<<

Where Is the Justice Department on the Trump Obstruction Offenses?

Some speculation as the statutes of limitations for offenses described in the Mueller report begin to run down.

www.lawfareblog.com

Letting the statute of limitations run out is tantamount to Biden giving Trump a pardon.

Those who believe Ford's pardon of Nixon was a travesty should be equally outraged at Biden for letting Trump off the hook on the Mueller report.

For those who believe the Biden administration indicted Trump in the Florida documents case for purely political reasons, it's hard to square that belief with the fact that Biden is letting Trump off the hook on the Mueller report. As far as I can tell, prior to the Florida indictment, the Biden administration had been treating Trump with the softest of kid gloves.

The lawfare blog lists 5 possible reasons the DOJ is letting the clock run out without filing charges. I'll add one more. Perhaps Trump pardoned himself before he left office. It is presently unclear if this would hold up in court and the Biden administration may be reluctant to test in court. A self-pardon appears to be highly unlikely. If nothing else, it's hard to believe it would not have been leaked.

DOJ short on funding and manpower to prosecute yet another crime, an older event?
Yes, DOJ should do it no matter what.
By the way, when does that statute of limitation expire?

 

[mtrycrafts]

...

Yeah, I need a favor from you. Why don’t you commit a felony for me, and jeopardize your law license?

One line to add..."I pay well if you can collect. "

 

[Mr._Clark]

DOJ short on funding and manpower to prosecute yet another crime, an older event?
Yes, DOJ should do it no matter what.
By the way, when does that statute of limitation expire?

I doubt it's a manpower or funding issue.

There is a "heat map" in the article listing the dates that the acts occurred and the dates that the statute of limitations expires for each act:

 

[Mr._Clark]

Trump has gone through an amazing amount of lawyers. Most have resigned rather than continue on with him. But some have jeopardized their law licenses, and may have committed felonies. Does anyone know of a list of these lawyers, when they resigned, and why?

I know of one attorney, John Dowd. Back in March of 2018, Dowd resigned from the team of lawyers preparing a defense for Trump in Mueller's Russia Probe. In a book, Bob Woodward claimed that Dowd had practiced with Trump in preparation for testifying under oath. He said that Dowd concluded that Trump couldn't avoid lying under oath. Dowd resigned a month or two later after this practice took place, and later denied Woodward's story. Woodward has stuck by his story.

Since then, I've lost count of how many lawyers and teams of lawyers have resigned, rather than continue working for Trump.

The recent Mar-A-Lago secret documents indictment relates that in May 2022, speaking with one of his attorneys, Trump suggested that the lawyer deep-six any problem documents. As the lawyer later recalled: “He made a funny motion as though – well okay why don’t you take them with you to your hotel room and if there’s anything really bad in there, like, you know, pluck it out.”

Yeah, I need a favor from you. Why don’t you commit a felony for me, and jeopardize your law license?

This article has a list, but I have not checked it for accuracy:

All The Trump Lawyers Who Have Quit: Tacopina Latest To Walk Away

A top attorney in Trump's New York criminal case has stepped down.

www.forbes.com

It has become more and more apparent over time that Trump pressures his lawyers to violate ethics rules and commit criminal acts. From the indictment:

Trump was apparently referring to one of Clinton's lawyers. The clear implication is that he wanted his attorneys to commit a crime and take the fall for him so he wouldn't get in trouble ("she didn't get in any trouble because he said that he was the one who deleted them.").

Even if Trump had the facts of the Clinton case wrong, it's clear that he wanted his attorneys to take the fall for him.

It's somewhat surprising that any attorney would agree to represent him, let alone someone with a stellar career that would be put at risk.

 

[Mr._Clark]

FWIW, this article has a good discussion of whether or not Judge Cannon should recuse herself and if she can be forced to be recused.

Will the Judge in Trump’s Case Recuse Herself—or Be Forced To?

Federal law requires a judge to step away from a case in which her impartiality “might reasonably be questioned.”

www.newyorker.com

The article touches on an important power judges have:

>>>If the judge grants a directed verdict of acquittal before the case goes to the jury, that’s the end of it. That cannot be appealed.<<< (emphasis added)

In theory, unless Cannon recuses herself or the appeals court grants a motion to recuse her, she could just declare that Trump is innocent and that would be the end of it. This would surprise me, but almost everything Cannon did in the other Trump case last year surprised me.

 

[Trell]

>>>If the judge grants a directed verdict of acquittal before the case goes to the jury, that’s the end of it. That cannot be appealed.<<< (emphasis added)

This was a surprise to read.