Just in case there was any doubt about how Allen Weisselberg would be "rewarded" by Trump for being a loyal trooper and taking a hit for the team, Trump, true to form, threw Weisselberg under the bus right out of the gate:I'm assuming you're referring to the fraud lawsuit filed in NY:
![]()
N.Y. Attorney General Accuses Trump of ‘Staggering’ Fraud in Lawsuit (Published 2022)
The New York attorney general, Letitia James, is seeking to bar the Trump family from ever operating in the state again.www.nytimes.com
It's obviously not a trivial matter, but I'm somewhat skeptical because these types of cases tend to be difficult to prove:
>>>Yet her case against him could be difficult to prove. Property valuations are often subjective, and the financial statements include a disclaimer that they have not been audited. And at a trial, his lawyers will most likely emphasize that Deutsche Bank and his other lenders were hardly victims; all of his loans are either current or were paid off, some early.
Mr. Trump also famously does not use email, so any instructions he might have given his employees about the company’s financial statements might not be in writing. The lack of a damning email — or a witness inside his company willing to testify against him — might complicate her effort to show that he intentionally used his financial statements to defraud lenders and insurers.<<<
Who knows, it could eventually lead to Trump taking a big hit but I'm not holding my breath.
I noticed Trump invoked his favorite "witch hunt" accusation:
>>>Mr. Trump has cast each inquiry as part of a never-ending “witch hunt” and denied all wrongdoing.<<<
To my mind there may well be a "witch" and the prosecutors may well succeed in one or more of the cases.
Is there anyone who Trump doesn’t accuse of lying?"I think they're going to be worried about Allen Weissberg because Allen was Fred Trump's accountant before he was Donald Trump's CFO, and he knows where all the financial bodies are buried, and I think they're worried about his testimony to the point that they've already signaled they're going to accuse him of lying," said Trump biographer Tim O'Brien, who has been sued by Trump.
Ooh. I got this one…Is there anyone who Trump doesn’t accuse of lying?
This got my curiosity up. A couple google searches revealed that he has actually admitted (more or less) to lying:Ooh. I got this one…
Himself.
Anyone remember Horshack on Welcome Back Kotter? (It took me a while to remember it myself.)Ooh. I got this one…
Himself.
It looks like the immunity deals are starting to play out. Once the government grants immunity, the Fifth Amendment goes bye bye and the witness can either sing like canary or go to the Greybar Hotel.The NYT article also mentions the Fifth Amendment:
>>>There is another potential legal hurdle. If there is reason to believe that Mr. Corcoran, Ms. Bobb or both are at risk themselves of being charged with crimes like obstruction or lying to federal investigators, they would have a Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination.
As a result, neither could likely be compelled to testify before a grand jury about their interactions with Mr. Trump without a grant of immunity from prosecution at a minimum.<<<(emphasis added)
A grant of immunity "trumps" (pardon the pun) the Fifth Amendment. Thus, the Fifth Amendment is not necessarily a major roadblock if the primary target of an investigation is not the person who took the Fifth:
>>>Federal prosecutors may provide immunity to a culpable person to obtain evidence to prosecute others. A person receiving immunity cannot be prosecuted using their compelled statements. Accordingly, an individual provided with immunity cannot assert their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination because they are not being forced to assist in their own prosecution.<<< (disclaimer: I do not know this attorney, but everything I've seen so far on this webpage appears to be accurate)
Explanation of “Immunity” in Federal Prosecutions
Federal prosecutors may provide immunity to a culpable person to obtain evidence to prosecute others. A person receiving immunity cannot be prosecuted using their compelled statements. Accordingly, an individual provided with immunity cannot assert their Fifth Amendment right against self-incri...www.federalcriminaldefense.law
More bluntly, a prosecutor can grant immunity and force a person to comply even if the person took the Fifth.
What if the person still refuses? The judge will send them to the Greybar Hotel until they change their mind.
It is being reported that John Eastman took the Fifth in the Georgia case:
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3622689-eastman-invoked-fifth-amendment-where-appropriate-in-appearance-before-georgia-grand-jury-lawyers-say/
The cynical side of me says he's fishing for immunity by taking the Fifth. Get in line buddy, get in line.
It looks like one of the snakes narrowly averted a train wreck by settling a civil lawsuit just before trial. Habba says a lot of really dumb things, but settling this was undoubtedly a good choice. There's a good chance Trump would have been burned to a financial crisp if this went to a jury.I was thinking someone should make a movie about Trump's lawyers called "Snakes on a Train" but then I realized there was a already a movie by that name. Thus, I propose a sequel: "Snakes on a Train Wreck." Hopefully it will be just as forgettable as the original.
![]()
Snakes on a Train - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
It looks like we'll be seeing a lot more news coverage of the Mar-A-Lago case now that the mid term elections are (almost) over. I'm not sure we'll ever know with certainty what Trump's motivation was, but this article suggests it was ego and a desire to hold on to the materials as trophies of some sort.Keep in mind that I was speculating on a possible motive, not intent. The following is reasonably decent overview of the differences:
>>>Although motive and intent are often used interchangeably, they are distinct concepts in criminal law. Motive deals with an individual’s underlying reasons for committing a crime, whereas intent is concerned with their willingness to carry out specific actions related to the offense.<<<
. . .
In other words,, in terms of criminal liability it doesn't really matter what Trump's motivation was. The DOJ does not need to convince a jury he wanted to make money or gain power with the documents (your proposed motivation). The DOJ also does not need to convince a jury he's an egotistical wack job (my proposed motivation).
I've also been looking forward to the post-election days for a good number of reasons, including hearing more from the Jan 6 Committee or the Justice Dept. I wonder what testimony or evidence will emerge concerning the trove of secret documents found at Mar-A-Lago.Keep in mind that I was speculating on a possible motive, not intent. The following is reasonably decent overview of the differences:
>>>Although motive and intent are often used interchangeably, they are distinct concepts in criminal law. Motive deals with an individual’s underlying reasons for committing a crime, whereas intent is concerned with their willingness to carry out specific actions related to the offense.
Definition of Motive
Usually, a person’s motive can be determined by looking at various factors leading up to the commission of the crime. For example, if Bill punched Barry, an examination of the facts might reveal that Barry had stolen Bill’s watch, giving Bill a motive for punching him. Although investigators may be able to determine a person’s motive, that does not link them to the crime; the prosecutor does not have to prove the defendant had a reason to engage in criminal behavior. However, a judge or jury may consider motive when hearing the case.
Definition of Intent
Intent refers to a person’s conscious decision to commit an act that violates state or federal laws. Generally, intent is an element of an offense that the prosecutor must prove. For example, in Florida, a person commits battery when they “actually or intentionally touch or strike another person..” or they “intentionally cause bodily harm to another person.” Returning to the example of Bill and Barry, if Bill was waving his hands in the air while telling a story and accidentally hit Barry, his actions were not intentional, and he would not be charged with battery. However, if he purposefully punched Barry, he may be charged.<<<
![]()
The Difference Between Intent and Motive? | The Webster Law Office
Although motive and intent are often used interchangeably, they are distinct concepts in criminal law. Learn more about the differences in this blog.thewebsterlawoffice.com
In criminal cases, providing evidence of motive typically comes up in the context of convincing the finder of fact (e.g. a jury) that the defendant was the person who committed the crime. In a variation of the example above, if Barry was killed but it was unclear who did it, his stealing of Bill's watch would give Bill a motive and make it more likely that Bill did it, but there would still need to be evidence Bill actually did it with the necessary intent.
In other words,, in terms of criminal liability it doesn't really matter what Trump's motivation was. The DOJ does not need to convince a jury he wanted to make money or gain power with the documents (your proposed motivation). The DOJ also does not need to convince a jury he's an egotistical wack job (my proposed motivation).
In support of Cohen's idea, there is the story of Trump's threat to Christine Whitman, Gov of NJ. Apparently, her son made a loud drunken appearance in Trump's casino/hotel in Atlantic City. Of course, it was preserved on the hotel's closed circuit video. When New Jersey state officials had threatened Trump with some sort of trouble, he contacted Gov. Whitman, saying it would be too bad if her son's performance became public. According to Cohen, saving ammunition for future use as blackmail or extortion is standard operating procedure for Trump.Trump stole those all highly classified documents as future bargaining chips against prosecution for crimes he committed while president. He would threaten to release them publicly, or reveal them to Russia or China, unless federal prosecutors back off. It's nothing less than blackmail. Cohen described how Trump often collected dirt on prosecutors, judges, rivals, or troublesome politicians in the past, in case he needed extortion ammunition to protect himself.
If it came down to charges and conviction, could the motive have some bearing on the sentence? I mean, I think I would seek a harsher penalty for taking the documents in order to sell them, than just to have them as souvenirs.It looks like we'll be seeing a lot more news coverage of the Mar-A-Lago case now that the mid term elections are (almost) over. I'm not sure we'll ever know with certainty what Trump's motivation was, but this article suggests it was ego and a desire to hold on to the materials as trophies of some sort.
>>>Federal agents and prosecutors have come to believe former president Donald Trump’s motive for allegedly taking and keeping classified documents was largely his ego and a desire to hold on to the materials as trophies or mementos, according to people familiar with the matter. . . .
That review has not found any apparent business advantage to the types of classified information in Trump’s possession, these people said. FBI interviews with witnesses so far, they said, also do not point to any nefarious effort by Trump to leverage, sell, or use the government secrets. Instead, the former president seemed motivated by a more basic desire not to give up what he believed was his property, these people said. . . .
The analysis of Trump’s likely motive in allegedly keeping the documents is not, strictly speaking, an element of determining whether he or anyone around him committed a crime, or should be charged with one. Justice Department policy dictates that prosecutors file criminal charges in cases in which they believe a crime was committed and the evidence is strong enough to lead to a conviction that will hold up on appeal. But as a practical matter, motive is an important part of how prosecutors assess cases and decide whether to file criminal charges.
Robert Mintz, a former federal prosecutor, said keeping hundreds of classified documents, many marked top secret, at a private home “is such a perplexing thing to do” that it makes sense for prosecutors to search for a motive.
“It makes perfect sense as to why prosecutors would be spending time scouring through the various records and documents to look for some kind of pattern or theme to explain why certain records were kept and why others were not,” Mintz said. “In presenting a case to a jury, prosecutors typically want to explain the motive for committing a crime. It’s not necessary to prove a crime, but it helps tell the story of exactly how a crime unfolded, according to the government.”<<<
I'm not sure. My best guess is "yes" it could have an effect on sentencing, but I have not reviewed the sentencing guidelines for these crimes.If it came down to charges and conviction, could the motive have some bearing on the sentence? I mean, I think I would seek a harsher penalty for taking the documents in order to sell them, than just to have them as souvenirs.
What a freakin' doofus.![]()
There has been at least one case where an employee (at the NSA?) with a high level clearance took cartons of top secret documents and stored them at his home. Apparently (if memory serves me), he did not try to sell them. At least, the DOJ had no evidence, usable in a public court room, that he attempted to sell or turn the documents over to someone else.If it came down to charges and conviction, could the motive have some bearing on the sentence? I mean, I think I would seek a harsher penalty for taking the documents in order to sell them, than just to have them as souvenirs.
What a freakin' doofus.![]()
There is also obstruction charges that can be brought as it seems he has done so.There has been at least one case where an employee (at the NSA?) with a high level clearance took cartons of top secret documents and stored them at his home. Apparently (if memory serves me), he did not try to sell them. At least, the DOJ had no evidence, usable in a public court room, that he attempted to sell or turn the documents over to someone else.
He was convicted, and is in prison now. I wish I remembered more details.
The important factor in this case was that the employee had signed documents informing him of the espionage laws and his requirement to keep those secrets. As president, Trump never had a background investigation or a formal security clearance. (If there had been such an investigation, he would have certainly been denied a clearance.) I also believe, but I am not certain, that presidents are not required to sign those kind of documents, however they are entitled to ask to see any classified documents. I do not know if this will have any bearing if Trump is prosecuted.
The FBI investigation found no evidence that Martin, a Navy veteran who served 1988 to 1992, had any malice against the United States nor an intent to transmit the documents to anyone else, said James Wyda, Martin’s attorney.
Here are 4 links:At the time of Martin’s arrest in August 2016, the government believed he was feeding information to the Shadow Brokers, the notorious hacking group that dumped a trove of NSA cyber weapons onto the internet earlier that summer. Many intelligence officials saw the leak as more damaging than the Edward Snowden leaks in 2013, and the world is still dealing with its repercussions today.
According to prosecutors, Martin had been communicating with individuals online in Russian and attempting to mask his digital tracks though anonymized internet connections and other technical tools. That said, given his digital security expertise, Martin’s use of such tools probably wouldn’t raise eyebrows outside the context of the case.
In August 2016, Martin also reached out to the Russian cybersecurity firm Kaspersky Lab on Twitter requesting a meeting and referencing time-sensitive information. The messages were sent less than an hour before the Shadow Brokers dumped their first trove of data. The cryptic communications, first reported by Politico, prompted Kaspersky to notify the NSA, which ultimately led the FBI to obtain a search warrant for Martin’s property.
However, over the course of the trial, the Shadow Brokers theory faded. The defense argued there was no evidence Martin shared the information he possessed with anyone, and the government never disclosed a definitive connection between Martin and the group, at least publicly. The Shadow Brokers also continued to leak information while Martin was in prison, indicating that he himself did not operate the account. The group’s identity remains a mystery today, though many suspect it’s linked to Russia.
Trump can of course make numerous arguments (e.g. "I declassified the documents," executive privilege, etc.) that Martin could not. Also, the practical implications of trying Trump in a federal court will undoubtedly play some role in the DOJ's decision. If the DOJ indicts him while he's a candidate the trial will inevitably turn into a three ring circus due to Trump's antics (I wish these types of things played no role, but I see little point in pretending it won't).It took some searching, but I found news links to the case I had spoken of. Harold Thomas Martin III, a contractor for the NSA, was sentenced to 9 years in prison for stealing nearly half a billion classified documents in digital form over a period of nearly 20 years.
@Mr._Clark
What precedents, if any, do you see between the Martin case, and Trump's theft of classified documents?
Here are 4 links:
https://www.justice.gov/usao-md/pr/government-contractor-charged-removal-classified-materials-and-theft-government-property
https://www.nextgov.com/cybersecurity/2019/07/ex-nsa-contractor-serve-9-years-hoarding-classified-information/158564/
https://www.baltimoresun.com/maryland/baltimore-city/bs-md-ci-glen-burnie-man-sentenced-nsa-20190719-elck7ytza5f77okxeax4upzmim-story.html
![]()
NSA government contractor 'stole classified files'
A National Security Agency contractor is accused of stealing top secret files that could have caused "exceptionally grave damage to national security".www.bbc.com