January 6th legal proceedings and investigations megathread

[Torie]

Voluntarily met with the committee.  Commendable.  Ignoring a CNN reporter.  Understandable.

Let me guess: You believe she's done no wrong, and you think Justice Thomas shouldn't recuse himself from 2020-election/Jan 6/election interference related matters.

I think her refusing to talk to the press about her testimony was totally appropriate myself. God bless Grumps's perspicacity. She shall speak through and only through her testimony, and not the press. She is not running for office, and thus has no need to reside in spin city. Be patient. In due course you will be able to read her testimony under oath, word for word. I suspect you will find it underwhelming, because she is far from the center of the Machiavellian legal storm, but we shall see. She just suffers from the MAGA syndrome perhaps.

[Torie]

One wonders if Trump ran that deranged rant by his lawyers before sending it, and if he did, what they had to say about it.

Yes, this paranoid jeremiad does remind me of Humphrey Bogart rolling the marbles between his fingers while describing the ship wide conspiracy against him to cover up the strawberry heist in the The Caine Mutiny. Who ate the missing Trump ballots? Sane or insane!!??

[Torie]

One wonders if Trump ran that deranged rant by his lawyers before sending it, and if he did, what they had to say about it.

I've seen enough: in a huge victory for the eventual prosecution, former Pres. Donald Trump (R) did not run this 14-page-long letter written single-spaced like a serial killer by a lawyer before submitting it to the Jan. 6th Committee.

The thing is, is that while the twitter squib says 14 pages, when reading it with its most infra dig gratuitous capitalizations of words as if that lends gravitas to the array of words he bellowed out, I counted only 3.5 pages, and then Trump's signature, and I do not recall any reference to attachments. I find the twitter world to be most irritating. There ought to be a law ... .

[Torie]

Potentially stupid question: Couldn't the January 6 committee just continue in the senate, where Democrats have the majority? I think Mitt Romney, Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins and a few others might be willing to participate for the Republican side?

Sure but the last session of the House made clear that it had run out of material. I don't think there is a Trump crime arising from Jan 6, just impeachment and conviction action. As Andy McCarthy observed, instead of impeaching with no ensuing conviction in play, the House should have just kept going with impeachment hearings until the chances of a Senate conviction were maximized, and then the conviction penalty would be a bar to future Federal office for the ex-President Trump. The whole process was otherwise meaningless given that Trump had but a fortnight of time left in office. If he went rogue, Pence could have pressed the incapacity button, and Trump knew that. As it was, Pence illegally ordered law enforcement to protect the Capitol with Trump AWOL.

That is my take of events anyway.

[Torie]

Potentially stupid question: Couldn't the January 6 committee just continue in the senate, where Democrats have the majority? I think Mitt Romney, Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins and a few others might be willing to participate for the Republican side?

Sure but the last session of the House made clear that it had run out of material. I don't think there is a Trump crime arising from Jan 6, just impeachment and conviction action. As Andy McCarthy observed, instead of impeaching with no ensuing conviction in play, the House should have just kept going with impeachment hearings until the chances of a Senate conviction were maximized, and then the conviction penalty would be a bar to future Federal office for the ex-President Trump. The whole process was otherwise meaningless given that Trump had but a fortnight of time left in office. If he went rogue, Pence could have pressed the incapacity button, and Trump knew that. As it was, Pence illegally ordered law enforcement to protect the Capitol with Trump AWOL.

That is my take of events anyway.

Whether or not there is a chargable Trump crime re: the January 6th assault on the Capitol that attempted to keep him in power depends on how far the DoJ is able to prove the chain of conspiracy regarding the organization of the attack.

That the mob Trump's campaign organized and which he incited attacked the Capitol with assistance and encouragement from members of the Proud Boys and other pro-Truml militants is well established.

Likewise, that the milita seeded into the mob were taking direction from their own leaders, and that their goals were seditious has been proven in court.

That pro-Trump milita leadership were in contact with Trump associates, like Roger Stone, is well-documented fact.

As far as I know,  beyond that point the cut-outs Trump used for his treasonous plot (note that even a plan to "just" threaten Pence by force to illegally overturn the election is treason) have been effective. To indict Trump over this particular set of crimes, the links that need to be proved are that instructions and information flowed between milita leadership and Trump's inner circle, and that those orders and information were passed at the direction of, or with the knowledge and approval of, Donald Trump.

While it has not been flashy or swift, Merrjt Garland's DoJ has been steadily building that chain. Hopefully the Special Prosecutor will be able to complete it. The investigation keeps slowly closing in. For example, the recent case of Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio showed that his associates at least believed he was in communication with Trump Junior about the Capitol attack.

"To indict Trump over this particular set of crimes, the links that need to be proved are that instructions and information flowed between milita leadership and Trump's inner circle, and that those orders and information were passed at the direction of, or with the knowledge and approval of, Donald Trump."

I totally agree. No such evidence has hit the public square. I would think it would have if anything was there, but keep hope alive. The most damming element is the pardon Trump gave Roger Stone, so he can't be turned assuming he was the conduit. What Trump did however is a textbook example of when a POTUS should be removed from office through the impeachment process.

[Torie]

You guys are missing the point that if the jury decides to convict a ham sandwich, the judge can throw out the conviction notwithstanding the verdict. So Trump has little to lose in going for a jury trial. He gets two bites of the apple.

The other thing Trump has going for him is DC. since a DC jury is likely to nail Trump if there is a plausible case. So if it is a plausible but not a compelling case, and Trump is convicted, there will be a firestorm. That is why the Special Prosecutor (perhaps less likely than the DOJ actually), will only indict if there is a compelling case that it would be an abuse not to pursue, and viewed that way by educated opinion on both sides of the political divide. To do otherwise, would be irresponsible.

And that is why I think only papergate is really in play. A call to GA asking the SOS to find the votes because there was fraud, is just not going to cut it, nor Trump asking the mob to go to the Capitol without more, nor the phony elector circus.

We shall see.

[Torie]

Liz Cheney, the focused, obsessed and oh so talented and articulate "dominatrix" who wrote the script and then directed it, as well as gain the confidence of the most key witnesses to tell all, is documented by this very long and most fascinating article that alas is behind a paywall.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/23/magazine/jan-6-committee.html

A supposedly powerless and ceremonial vice chairman, as we all know from the public presentations, was totally dominant and by far the most compelling presenter. The article documents that she was even more dominant behind the scenes, and critically gained the trust of Hutchinson and others to spill the beans. She was at once the talented script writer, producer and directer, working hand in glove with the television guy who was hired to do precisely that. She knew it would destroy her political career. She accepted that.

One interesting tidbit was that a key source of her power was Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi is more to the Left than me by a bit (perhaps these days not by a lot, it's been quite a journey for me), but  McCarthy replacing Pelosi as Speaker is an almost paradigmatic example of a mensch being replaced by a nebbish

And now for a personal note. Once in a rare while it is clear in my mind that there is a person who should have been President but was not, and the country suffered from it. Henry Clay was one such person. Liz Cheney almost certainly when the book is closed will be another, in my mind at least, as long as the lights in it are still on.

[Torie]

This article only reinforces my opinion that absent something not yet public that ties Trump more closely to the violence or an attempt to actually defraud in a secretive way, the DOJ is most unlikely to indict on matters unrelated to paper gate. If I were on a jury without more, my surmise is that I would be a not guilty vote at this point based on what we know at the moment.

https://thehill.com/homenews/3786818-with-eyes-on-doj-a-complex-path-for-trump-jan-6-prosecution/

[Torie]

Jack Smith is also narrowing the focus and speeding up the investigation of Trump, so a resolution one way or the other of Trump's legal future might be near at hand. Some of the urgency might be to avoid matters dragging on into the campaign season. Trump tried to start the campaign season early, but that ploy is not going to work.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/09/us/politics/pence-subpoena-trump.html

[Torie]

Sounds like she's all but saying they recommended indicting Trump.

That's how I interpreted it.

Who knew? Prosecuting based on the infamous Trump phone call, and the insane legal theory to seat rogue GA electors, would be a terrible mistake.  There is no crime there, as a higher court at some point,  maybe SCOTUS will make clear. Hawking in broad daylight insane legal theories is not a crime, and to interrupt what Trump said as beyond a reasonable doubt, that he was asking the GA SOS to criminally falsify (God knows how he would do it), the vote count, as opposed to just venting, damn it I know I won, there has to be a counting error, find it damn it), would be a travesty.

The press is by and large a POS on this matter. Sloppy thinking, here, there and everywhere. And if the GA action goes forward, and Trump beats it like a drum (this broken down old lawyer's take), it just might make him POTUS again, with Ukraine flushed down the toilet. Think about that one for a moment.

I cried almost when Biden and now Pence was found with docs they should not have had. I really almost did.  What a sad political class we have.  Just pathetic.

[Torie]

I am skeptical there is some smoking gun not reported in the press, but sure, it's possible.

[Torie]

I have come to the firm opinion that grand juries, and special grand juries in particular (who wants an advisory opinion from a bunch of people off the street? really!), are a waste of time, and a flawed process to boot. Like so much else when it comes to the law, the Brits in their wisdom got rid of them, along with juries except in capital crimes, and long before that voir dire, and in this instance, its colonies too, except for the US and Liberia of all places. The more dysfunctional a legal process, the more the US embraces it. So sad.

I served on a grand jury myself 5 years ago, and the DA there was the guy I just interned for to get my pro bono hours to become an NYS lawyer. That sealed the deal. And in this case, the defendant actually showed up, to defend himself, who happened to be a neighbor of mine right across the ally. Small towns are just so much fun.

In more civilized places like CA, they do not exist. The idea is to have an adversary preliminary hearing before a judge, as to whether a case gets to a jury or not. While it was not the case for the grand jury that I was on, where I insisted on asking questions, the rap on grand juries is that they would indict a ham sandwich to boot.

But yeah, the idiot foreperson should have kept her mouth shut, rather than just embarrass herself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_juries_in_the_United_States

[Torie]

Emily Kohrs.

What was this woman thinking? She's the best the Grand Jury could come up with to make forewoman? And shame on the media for pressing her to go further and further.

Kohrs has singlehandedly complicated the case, and her actions call into question the integrity of the entire process. Totally unprofessional, and she seems like a bimbo gushing about how she would've liked to subpoena Trump simply so she could swear him in and get her 60 seconds with him.

All of this might be just enough to allow Trump to escape any kind of justice yet again.

Can you explain how this helps Trump in a court of law?

The theory is that the publicity will prejudice the members of a real grand jury with a real power to indict, because they all read the newspapers and/or Atlas. It is not going anywhere. This foreplay is not going to let Trump skate if he committed a crime on this matter, except I am quite confident based on what I know that he didn't.

[Torie]

Emily Kohrs.

What was this woman thinking? She's the best the Grand Jury could come up with to make forewoman? And shame on the media for pressing her to go further and further.

Kohrs has singlehandedly complicated the case, and her actions call into question the integrity of the entire process. Totally unprofessional, and she seems like a bimbo gushing about how she would've liked to subpoena Trump simply so she could swear him in and get her 60 seconds with him.

All of this might be just enough to allow Trump to escape any kind of justice yet again.

Can you explain how this helps Trump in a court of law?

The theory is that the publicity will prejudice the members of a real grand jury with a real power to indict, because they all read the newspapers and/or Atlas. It is not going anywhere. This foreplay is not going to let Trump skate if he committed a crime on this matter, except I am quite confident based on what I know that he didn't.

Are you implying that Trump didn’t commit a crime?

Based on what I know, I am stating it, not merely implying it, as to the attempt to corrupt the election or storm the Capitol. The best paths involve the false statements regarding documents he should not have had in his possession (papergate), a path degraded by Biden and Pence doing the same thing, albeit without lying, and tax and other personal and corporate frauds.

That does not mean he will not be indicted on alleged crimes based on election related raps, but in the end he will skate if indicted, and perhaps even get a new lease on political life if the indictment(s) crash and fail. I hope calmer heads will prevail.

[Torie]

Emily Kohrs.

What was this woman thinking? She's the best the Grand Jury could come up with to make forewoman? And shame on the media for pressing her to go further and further.

Kohrs has singlehandedly complicated the case, and her actions call into question the integrity of the entire process. Totally unprofessional, and she seems like a bimbo gushing about how she would've liked to subpoena Trump simply so she could swear him in and get her 60 seconds with him.

All of this might be just enough to allow Trump to escape any kind of justice yet again.

Can you explain how this helps Trump in a court of law?

The theory is that the publicity will prejudice the members of a real grand jury with a real power to indict, because they all read the newspapers and/or Atlas. It is not going anywhere. This foreplay is not going to let Trump skate if he committed a crime on this matter, except I am quite confident based on what I know that he didn't.

Are you implying that Trump didn’t commit a crime?

Based on what I know, I am stating it, not merely implying it, as to the attempt to corrupt the election or storm the Capitol. The best paths involve the false statements regarding documents he should not have had in his possession (papergate), a path degraded by Biden and Pence doing the same thing, albeit without lying, and tax and other personal and corporate frauds.

That does not mean he will not be indicted on alleged crimes based on election related raps, but in the end he will skate if indicted, and perhaps even get a new lease on political life if the indictment(s) crash and fail. I hope calmer heads will prevail.

Why would he skate if indicted? Can you explain to me what would happen after he is indicted?

The prosecution fails, either with a jury if not dismissed by a trial judge or on appeal. Perhaps I am missing the thrust of your question. I don't think Trump committed a crime on the matters that i described based on what I know so far.

[Torie]

I told you based on what I know, I am stating not implying that he did not commit a crime. So thus the concern about a failed prosecution. On a civil level what he was trying to accomplish was not legal. That is my opinion.

[Torie]

In search of a crime to get Donald Trump


Shocking as it may be, Alan Dershowitz agrees with me that grand juries suck more or less, and the potential of an irresistible impulse to bag Trump just might reanimate the beast. It's lonely at the top.  

https://dersh.substack.com/p/in-search-of-a-crime-to-get-donald?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=373575&post_id=106019883&isFreemail=true&utm_medium=email

[Torie]

We seem to have a race to the courthouse between GA and the Feds. Jack Smith and the GA DA (Fani T. Willis) do not seem to be cooperating. The klieg lights are just too alluring I guess.

The problem is the overlap in witnesses and the facts, potentially generating a lot of cross toe stepping. The law is just so much fun in the US. There is nothing else like it, in its glorious byzantine complexity due to the oddities of how the US came into being.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/07/us/politics/trump-georgia-justice-department.html

[Torie]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/14/politics/special-counsel-witnesses-maralago-trump-paid-lawyers/index.html

Federal prosecutors investigating former President Donald Trump’s handling of classified documents are pressing multiple witnesses for details about their attorneys, including whether any of them have attempted to influence testimony in order to protect the former president, multiple sources tell CNN.

Investigators have focused these questions toward a group of witnesses who either work for Trump or are represented by lawyers provided by him. In some instances, prosecutors have asked how witnesses found their lawyers and if they know how they were compensated during grand jury sessions.

The line of questioning about Trump-provided attorneys suggests prosecutors are looking at any efforts by the former president to keep control over more than two dozen Mar-a-Lago staffers and political aides who have become central witnesses in recent months, and whose legal bills are paid by Trump. Investigators working for special counsel Jack Smith are exploring multiple facets of a possible obstruction case, and that could include whether testimony has been improperly influenced and coordinated within Trump’s legal network.

Head of criminal organization named "Don" is acting like a mob boss? Quelle surprise!

In case anyone is wondering, the penalty for witness tampering is up to 20 years in prison. Trump is  doing all he can to maximize his legal exposure in this case bless him. It started out as a just say your sorry affair, ala Biden and Pence, and now it's up to 20 years in the slammer. Awesome!

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512

[Torie]

The article says Trump will probably appeal everything. I wonder how long that will delay matters. SCOTUS won't be granting cert on this, nor will it go en banc at the appellate level. This legal issue is pretty cut and dried now. In reading the story, I could not help wondering why any lawyer want to work for Trump ever. Maybe the answer is that they are as screwed up as Trump himself. I am glad that I am not Mark Meadows.

[Torie]

I am a bit puzzled why the Fulton County case is taking so long to fish or cut bait. While perhaps the law is complex (that is why God invented Appellate Courts), in my no doubt naivete, it does not seem to me that the undying facts are that factually complex. 

[Torie]

I do have a tendency to assume the best in people most of the time, but it looks to me like after her early attempts to help Trump and getting throughly slapped down by a higher court, Cannon seems to have learned her lesson and is steering a good compromise course -- at least for now.  (Remember one definition of a compromise: an agreement that makes all parties equally unhappy.)

These days that makes you an endangered species deserving of special protection.

Myself, my expectations are low, but I still think I am above average in the sense that I want to see the actual evidence before consigning people to drawing and quartering in shark infested waters. Evidence based decision making is also going out of favor, in lieu of uncharitable surmises.

My diss of Cannon to date is that her writing ability is pedestrian.

[Torie]

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/07/26/jan-6-trump-indictment-origins-00108145

As an indictment of Trump over Jan 6 draws near it appears, the article has two bits of information that strike me as potentially having real criminal traction in a way the rest of the saga does not in my opinion.

The first is about fraudulent grifting:

“In the meantime, Trump barraged the airwaves and his supporters’ inboxes with fundraising appeals and ads accusing Democrats of cheating, stuffing his campaign’s coffers even as many of his own advisers privately indicated that he had, in fact, lost the race.

‘Smith may be eyeing Trump’s fundraising and messaging tactics for potential crimes related to defrauding donors or the public at large.”

The second which is a real attention grabber is about suborning perjury:

“These “alternative” or “contingent” electors signed certificates claiming to be the states’ duly qualified electors and delivered them to the National Archives and Congress, following a process set out in federal law for actual presidential electors.”

Can you imagine a rogue elector of attesting under oath (I assume it’s under oath, if not it’s not so sexy) that they are duly qualified? Dumber than a box or rocks, the lot of them.

Addendum: The article does make for riveting reading - the best I have seen anywhere. All the dots are most skillfully connected. It really is superb journalism.

[Torie]

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/07/26/jan-6-trump-indictment-origins-00108145

As an indictment of Trump over Jan 6 draws near it appears, the article has two bits of information that strike me as potentially having real criminal traction in a way the rest of the saga does not in my opinion.

The first is about fraudulent grifting:

“In the meantime, Trump barraged the airwaves and his supporters’ inboxes with fundraising appeals and ads accusing Democrats of cheating, stuffing his campaign’s coffers even as many of his own advisers privately indicated that he had, in fact, lost the race.

‘Smith may be eyeing Trump’s fundraising and messaging tactics for potential crimes related to defrauding donors or the public at large.”

The second which is a real attention grabber is about suborning perjury:

“These “alternative” or “contingent” electors signed certificates claiming to be the states’ duly qualified electors and delivered them to the National Archives and Congress, following a process set out in federal law for actual presidential electors.”

Can you imagine a rogue elector of attesting under oath (I assume it’s under oath, if not it’s not so sexy) that they are duly qualified? Dumber than a box or rocks, the lot of them.

The National Archives has copies of the phony electoral certificates online at https://www.archives.gov/foia/2020-presidential-election-unofficial-certificates.  In the case of Georgia, IANAL but it seems to me that at the very least, it's an open-and-shut violation of the statute concerning forgery of official state government documents.

Thanks for the research. I don't see forgery in play myself. But then it seems that the definition includes a document that makes misrepresentations (which I did not know - imagine that), so maybe you are right. Claiming that they were duly elected is clearly a misrepresentation.

Forgery

FindLaw
https://www.findlaw.com › ... › Criminal Charges
May 30, 2022 — With deceptive intent, a forger creates a false document, signature, or imitation of something valuable (sometimes called a "false instrument").


Forgery - Definition, Meaning & Synonyms

Vocabulary.com
https://www.vocabulary.com › dictionary › forgery
/ˈfɔdʒəri/ · noun. criminal falsification by making or altering an instrument with intent to defraud. see moresee less. type of: falsehood, falsification · noun.

[Torie]

One thing about this case that occurs to me is that if trump is indicted, given the absence of classified documents to review and obtaining the requisite security clearances, a trial will be less subject to delay. So a trial should happen well before the election (famous last words).

In my view, this case is less compelling than the documents case (depending on what charges are adduced based on what), so that makes obtaining a conviction more dicey, but then the jury pool will be drawn from DC, and when it comes to Trump, obtaining a guilty plea might be akin to indicting a ham sandwich, in which event the action will be as to whether the judge lets the case go forward (the judge probably will presumably), and what an appeals court does, which could take a long time.

Trump of course will want a venue change. I don't know how much traction that will get. It is not as if Trump will do much better if the venue is still in the DC metro area somewhere in any event.

If Trump is convicted, will Trump be spending time in the slammer while the case is on appeal?