|
|
Post by Old Badger on Jun 5, 2023 23:17:58 GMT -5
On Monday, Trump's criminal defense lawyers met with Special Counsel Jack Smith and other prosecutors in DC to argue against indictments. This is usually one of the last steps federal prosecutors take before bringing down indictments. And those defense pleas almost never work; they just allow the prosecutors to say they gave the defendant a fair chance to make a case. So, it seems almost certain that Smith is going to be indicting Trump sometime this summer.
Meanwhile, in Atlanta DA Fani Willis seems to have settled on prosecution not only for the overt efforts by Trump and his minions to get state officials to overturn the results of the 2020 election in Georgia, but for those acts as part of a broader conspiracy in multiple states to reverse the election outcome. Recently, she indirectly revealed her timetable by requesting that state, regional, and local law enforcement authorities prepare for possible crowd violence in late July and early August. A few days ago she asked Fulton County judges not to take time off during the first two weeks of August. These are pretty clear indications that indictments are coming, and when to expect them.
So, by the end of the summer the NYC indictment will be the least of Donald J. Trump's criminal legal problems.
|
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Jun 8, 2023 23:19:55 GMT -5
What a Thursday, huh? John Roberts led a Supreme Court majority in upholding a lower-court decision finding that Alabama had violated the Voting Rights Act by discriminating against Black voters in drawing congressional district lines--the same John Roberts who's been fighting against the VRA for his entire career. Then religious grifter Pat Robertson, who made millions fleecing his television flock, finally died. And finally Trump got his (first) federal indictment. I mean, how do you celebrate a day like that? Well, I did it my way:
|
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Jun 9, 2023 21:51:55 GMT -5
JFC! Look at this. Trump literally recorded himself committing an actual crime, of a type for which many people have gone to prison. Here's the transcript from the indictment:
33. OnJuly21,2021,when he was no longer president, TRUMP gave an interview in his office at The Bedminster Club to a writer and a publisher in connection with a then-forthcoming book Two members of TRUMP's staff also attended the interview, which was recorded with TRUMP's knowledge and consent. Before the interview, the media had published reports that, at the end of TRUMP's term as president, a senior military official (the Senior Military Official ) purportedly feared that TRUMP might order an attack on Country A and that the Senior Military Official advised TRUMP against doing so.
34. Upon greeting the writer, publisher, and his two staff members, TRUMP stated, "Look what I found, this was [the Senior Military Official's] plan of attack, read it and just show...it's interesting." Later in the interview, TRUMP engaged in the following exchange:
TRUMP: Well, with [the Senior Military Official] , let me see that, I'll show you an example. He said that I wanted to attack [Country A ] . Isn't it amazing? I have a big pile of papers, this thing just came up. Look This was him. They presented me this this is off the record, but they presented me this . This was him. This was the Defense Department and him.
WRITER: Wow.
TRUMP: We looked at some. This was him. This wasn't done by me, this was him. All sorts of stuff pages long look.
STAFFER: Mm.
TRUMP: Wait a minute, let's see here.
STAFFER: [Laughter] Yeah.
TRUMP: I just found, isn't that amazing? This totally wins my case, you know.
STAFFER: Mm- hm.
TRUMP: Except it is like, highly confidential.
STAFFER: Yeah. [Laughter]
TRUMP: Secret. This is secret information. Look, look at this. You attack, and --
***
TRUMP: By the way. Isn't that incredible?
STAFFER: Yeah.
TRMP: I was just thinking, because we were talking about it. And you know, he said, "he wanted to attack Country A , and what . . ."
STAFFER: You did.
TRUMP: This was done by the military and given to me. Uh, I think we can probably, right?
STAFFER: I don't know, we'll, we'll have to see. Yeah, we'll have to try to --
TRUMP: Declassify it.
STAFFER: --figure out a -- yeah.
TRUMP: See as president I could have declassified it.
STAFFER: Yeah. [Laughter]
TRUMP: Now I can't, you know, but this is still a secret.
STAFFER: Yeah. [Laughter] Now we have a problem.
TRUMP: Isn't that interesting?
At the time of this exchange, the writer, the publisher, and TRUMP's two staff members did not have security clearances or any need-to-know any classified information about a plan of attack on Country A.
|
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Jun 13, 2023 23:43:24 GMT -5
Tuesday was a day unlike any other in US history. For the first time ever, a former President was formally arrested, booked, and arraigned on felony criminal charges. As Neal Katyal said a few days ago, "It's a good day for the rule of law, but a sad day for the country." It was a bit like watching Richard Nixon resigning from the Presidency in 1974. As a political scientist I worry about the precedent being set, because I anticipate that at some point there will be frivolous efforts to do this when one party replaces another in the White House. We've seen it in many other countries, and as much as we'd like think America is unique, the fact is that our country's politics are a susceptible to tit-for-tat revenge as others, and once started it's hard to stop.
Despite that concern, it was important to assert that a President "can't do whatever [he] wants," as Trump insisted early in his term and continues to claim even now. This echoes Nixon's claim that "When the President does it, it's not illegal." The pardon of Nixon by Gerald Ford, while well-intended to calm the passions of the time, had the unfortunate effect of setting the expectation that Presidents can't be prosecuted (later adopted as official Department of Justice policy), and former Presidents shouldn't be. This is as dangerous as the precedent set a few hours ago because it encourages Presidents to skirt, bend, or break the law in the expectation that at worst they will face an impeachment trial...which no President ever has lost.
So, my feelings are mixed, but on balance I think this prosecution is in the long-term interests of the country, whatever the outcome at trial.
|
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Jun 16, 2023 0:22:30 GMT -5
Why did Trump hide documents, even when he was advised of the possible consequences? Well, maybe this:
The reference is to the movie about the mathematician John Nash. The article, based on a NYT report, depicts Trump as insisting on having with him at all times "the collection and transportation of a blizzard of newspapers and official documents that he kept close and that seemed to give him a sense of security," kind of like Linus van Pelt's blue blanket. Yes, Trump's still immature.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigapplebucky on Jun 17, 2023 21:26:09 GMT -5
The game now for Trump is to delay long enough to get himself elected. Scary thought. Smith has tried to hurry things up by not insisting on bail or travel restrictions. That might backfire if Trump escapes to Russia.
|
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Jun 17, 2023 22:24:32 GMT -5
The game now for Trump is to delay long enough to get himself elected. Scary thought. Smith has tried to hurry things up by not insisting on bail or travel restrictions. That might backfire if Trump escapes to Russia. |
|
