FBI search warrant executed at Mar-a-Lago (Update: Trump Indicted!)

[Torie]

Trump illegally taking, and then not returning, despite "requests," government documents relating to the dealings of his real estate empire is well ... interesting.

Maybe that is the real reason Trump is running for POTUS. If elected, the prosecution stop, and he is untouchable until two thirds of the Senate convicts him. Developing.

[Torie]

One of the comments from the peanut gallery mused whether an adult with a law degree really wrote the letter. The answer of course is yes. It’s not their fault that there client did not give them better material and went out of his way to hand incriminating evidence to the Justice Department on a platter.

[Torie]

What is missing here is a plausible motive other than Trump's huge amoral ego. That is the strangest bit in a case that is the one where it is most clear that Trump committed felonies that can be proven. The only thing Trump has left is prosecutorial discretion.

[Torie]

Well in my inbox Trump's best legal friend, Alan Dershowitz, says Trump skates, at least on appeal. Be that as it may, The Dersh just focused on the issue of declassification. That still leaves the issue of making false statements about the possession of the documents, be they classified or not. But no wonder the Special Prosecutor Smith is excited by Trump's alleged admission that the paper in his grubby little paws was classified after he was no longer POTUS, when it is too late to declassify it deus ex machina.

In the usual criminal prosecution, the government has the heavy burden of proving every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The status of the documents as classified is an element of crimes that prohibit the unauthorized possession of classified material. The government may claim that the question of whether documents once classified have been declassified is a matter of law to be decided by the judge. That is a weak argument under the Fifth and Sixth amendments and their history.

The bottom line is that if Mr. Trump or his lawyers allege — even without his testifying — that he declassified the documents, a criminal charge of unauthorized possession of classified documents will be difficult to prove. That doesn’t mean that a prosecutor could not get a grand jury to indict this particular ham sandwich. It does mean that it’s unlikely that a conviction against Mr. Trump would be sustainable.

[Torie]

The Hill is not bullish on Trump's legal prospects. That tape is like the Titanic hitting the iceberg.

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/4032637-new-evidence-in-trump-case-bolsters-two-sets-of-charges/

[Torie]

Trump seems to be losing his composure:

"“They are also going after me as RETRIBUTION for the Republicans in Congress going after them. The difference is, they have created major crimes, I have created none!

'The Marxists and Fascists in the DOJ & FBI are going after me at a level and speed never seen before in our Country, and I did nothing wrong. Joe Biden kept (keeps) thousand of documents, in many locations, some illegally taken from skiffs while he was a Senator, a big portion of which were classified. He didn’t want to give them back, and still doesn’t. Nothing happens to him, with same reasonable prosecutor who correctly exonerated Mike Pence. I have a much different prosecutor, a Trump hater!"

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2023/jun/06/trump-documents-charges-2024-republican-candidates-live-updates

[Torie]

Perhaps off topic, but I deem it not a coincidence that a host of new people have announced they are running for POTUS in the last fortnight. I suspect it is due to the perception that the odds that Trump's legal troubles will sink him have gone up substantially, and then the issue of multiple candidates dividing the anti-Trump vote and ensuring Trump's nomination goes away.
The odds have gone up of Trump's political demise because of the recent smoking gun evidence that has emerged (the moving around documents back and and forth and the tape where Trump admits the docs were classified) that Trump did commit multiple crimes with respect to the documents beyond a reasonable doubt, including most particularly obstruction of justice. With Trump politically castrated, the more the merrier.

[Torie]

I think Pence was waiting to be cleared on his documents issue. But otherwise yes I think Trump's issues are going to hurt him in the primary and the pols think so too, although the 2024 board is convinced they will help him lock it up lol.

Frequenting that particular place is not good for one's mental health. Stay away is my best advice. The thing is, is that Trump seems to have managed to have created conclusive proof that he has committed serious crimes, with malice aforethought because he thought the laws only applied to the little people, and never himself, that will entail serious time, like years in prison. And he will be tied down in a rather lengthy trial process while campaigning, unless he chooses to skip the trial, as is his right apparently, even for criminal trials.

[Torie]

Pending Supreme Court Case Complicates Special Counsel Smith’s Choices

Much has been written in the last 24 hours about where charges against former President Donald Trump would be brought with respect to his handling of government documents and obstructing the investigation into that conduct. The Constitution requires each criminal charge be brought in the location where the criminal conduct at issue occurred, but often that is in multiple jurisdictions, leaving the government free to choose from a variety of locations after considering a variety of factors.

But what if.

What if Special Counsel Jack Smith charges Trump in Washington DC, wins a criminal conviction from a jury finding the former president guilty of all charges, but also finding that the conduct occurred outside of DC and thus should never have heard the case? Can Smith try again in Florida?

Maybe not.

https://www.justsecurity.org/86845/pending-supreme-court-case-complicates-special-counsel-smiths-choices/

Good article about why everything may be shifting to Florida.

Jack Smith only needs to wait 3 weeks max to find out what SCOTUS thinks apparently. He would be prudent to do so.

The talk is that he will file in both DC and Florida to cover all his bases.

[Torie]

Pending Supreme Court Case Complicates Special Counsel Smith’s Choices

Much has been written in the last 24 hours about where charges against former President Donald Trump would be brought with respect to his handling of government documents and obstructing the investigation into that conduct. The Constitution requires each criminal charge be brought in the location where the criminal conduct at issue occurred, but often that is in multiple jurisdictions, leaving the government free to choose from a variety of locations after considering a variety of factors.

But what if.

What if Special Counsel Jack Smith charges Trump in Washington DC, wins a criminal conviction from a jury finding the former president guilty of all charges, but also finding that the conduct occurred outside of DC and thus should never have heard the case? Can Smith try again in Florida?

Maybe not.

https://www.justsecurity.org/86845/pending-supreme-court-case-complicates-special-counsel-smiths-choices/

Good article about why everything may be shifting to Florida.

Jack Smith only needs to wait 3 weeks max to find out what SCOTUS thinks apparently. He would be prudent to do so.

The talk is that he will file in both DC and Florida to cover all his bases.

Oral argument occurred in the case only a few weeks ago. Surely it's going to take significantly longer than 3 weeks from now, quite possibly more than 3 months from now, for a ruling.

Well SCOTUS takes the summer off. Do they typically carry cases over to the next term heard in the Spring? Dan just told me in bed that Smith didn't wait anyway. We were up to Midnight having some drinks with a councilman and the guy who wants to represent our ward, and we all hit it off. As a matter of principle, the guy hid his Hispanic ancestry by using his Anglo middle name to get into Yale as other than an affirmative action baby, and then turned down Harvard law school to become a film colorizer and therapy counselor. I found that pretty amazing and estimable. He's gay of course.  

[Torie]

I thought there would be more counts for what is considered a slam dunk case.

Also I think there will separate counts in DC.

I saw some people fretting that Smith made a mistake filing charges in Florida instead of DC.
They are afraid that a Florida jury will not convict Trump despite the evidence.

I think this is the real problem with doing it in Florida:

https://twitter.com/kfaulders/status/1667160251618021378

That name rang an unpleasant bell in my head. And yes indeed, Cannon is the not all that bright idiot judge with mediocre writing skills that was seemingly in the tank for Trump over the special master to review documents matter, issuing a ruling that was promptly overturned by the Court of Appeals. Well, I guess there is only so much damage a trial judge in a jury trial can do.

From Wikipedia:

Legal experts, including University of California law professor Orin Kerr, University of Texas School of Law professor Steve Vladeck, and George Mason University professor Mark J. Rozell, voiced surprise with Cannon's ruling or found it problematic.[40][41][42] Law360 eventually named this case as one of ten "major legal ethics cases" of 2022, with Cannon having "appeared particularly concerned with Trump's personal interests", and in an "ill-suited" move, she allowed the usage of executive privilege "to shield materials between different parts of the executive branch", leading to "howls from various corners of the legal establishment".[43]

After the Justice Department appealed to Cannon to allow their investigation into seized classified-marked documents to continue, and to exempt such documents from the special master's review, Cannon rejected this on September 15, refusing to accept the government's claims that the documents are classified "without further review by a neutral third party", due to "ongoing factual and legal disputes"; Trump's lawyers had not disputed that the documents were declassified in any court proceeding.[44][45] Further, Judge Cannon rejected the Justice Department's argument that Trump's possession of the material risked "imminent disclosure of classified information." She cited "leaks to the media after the underlying seizure" of the documents, without specifying what sources might have been responsible for the leaks.[44][46]

On September 21, the Eleventh Circuit stayed portions of Cannon's ruling, allowing around 100 classified documents to be used in the Justice Department's investigation, and rescinding the requirement for the special master to review the classified documents

Addendum from the NYT:

It was not clear whether Judge Cannon, who was criticized by a higher court for handing him a series of unusually favorable rulings during the early stages of the investigation, would remain assigned for the entirety of Mr. Trump’s case.

[Torie]

I'd say "hot take", but is this even one? I wouldn't be surprised to see another indictment bump in GOP primary polls. No matter what he's charged for, a majority of the GOP base will always just view this as a partisan witch hunt. Even when some R-politicians come out and say this is serious stuff, they're just dismissed as traitors and RINOs.

Actual facts coming out as to Trump's active obstruction of justice that are shocking to the conscience of all but the most incorrigible of sociopaths out there might prove difficult for even some MAGA types to digest without vomiting. We shall see.

[Torie]

It's not the defense he thinks it is. Even if you could prove Trump said they're declassified, at best that gets you he didn't mishandle classified information by removing them. But now the government deems them classified, so they're classified, and they asked for them back, and he didn't give them.

Even if Trump WAS able to mentally declassify them without telling anyone... couldn't Biden just say he re-classified everything the moment he took office?

And never told anyone? LOL.

Even if they are all declassified, the docs are still not Trump's to keep, and he still cannot lie under oath, or cause others to lie, and it would be a bad look if he declassified docs that if Putin had them would allow him to take over the world as it were.

[Torie]

This is beyond the looking glass stuff. Corcoran and his notes provided the road map for Smith to nail Trump and is probably Smith's star witness (lie and destroy Corcoran, I want to keep them all), yet Corcoran is still on Trump's legal team.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/11/us/politics/trump-indictment-m-evan-corcoran.html

[Torie]

I would assume delay is the tactic du jour. I read somewhere that if the trial would occur in the midst of the campaign season, the trial might well be held over until after the election. That would be most unfortunate [a disaster of epic proportions].

[Torie]

I would assume delay is the tactic du jour. I read somewhere that if the trial would occur in the midst of the campaign season, the trial might well be held over until after the election. That would be most unfortunate [a disaster of epic proportions].

Florida apparently has a rocket docket so a trial could be held this fall

Excerpt a criminal defendant can waive a speedy trial, and claim he is not ready for trial, etc. So the ability of the court to be expeditious is only part of the equation.

[Torie]

I would assume delay is the tactic du jour. I read somewhere that if the trial would occur in the midst of the campaign season, the trial might well be held over until after the election. That would be most unfortunate [a disaster of epic proportions].

Florida apparently has a rocket docket so a trial could be held this fall

Excerpt a criminal defendant can waive a speedy trial, and claim he is not ready for trial, etc. So the ability of the court to be expeditious is only part of the equation.

I thought a defendant waiving a speedy trial only works if the government wants to delay it too .

I am not a criminal lawyer, but I assume a claim by a defendant that he needs more time, would be given great deference, until it is clear that it's delay for delay's sake. Badger is the guy to ask here. He's a tort lawyer who makes the big bucks representing scumbag criminals. 

[Torie]

Marco minimizes the gravity of obstruction of justice and lying, and asking others to lie. Very sad.

An otherwise intelligent and informed chap, Del Tachi (and posters should stop calling him names by the way - that is infra dig and brands one as immature), implies that Trump because he is a VIP and otherwise his deranged and violence prone supporters might tear this country apart, is a predicate as to why he should skate. That persuades me about as much as Putin should be given whatever he wants, because otherwise he will press the button. Everything for defense, and not one cent for tribute, is what I think about that.

[Torie]

The fact that Trump's political rivals have not gone on the offensive tells me none of them feel like they have a serious shot at winning and simply want to audition for Trump's running mate. DeSantis and others should be all over this calling for Trump to drop out if for no other reason than for the good of the Republican Party (not that Trump cares about it at all).

Except the one who is even fatter than Trump.

The thing is, is you as a prominent Pub politician know Trump is deranged and dangerous, and if elected again would be a disaster to the nation, but a majority of your voters have gone nutter, and cannot break themselves of the Sirens seduced by Trump luring them to their own destruction. So what to do? Go full Romney and say F all of you, bye, or watch and wait for an opening in which to slip in the knife?

The cast of characters running I think think of themselves as standby equipment in case Trump is nailed, and sent to a jail cell. That might just break the spell.

Most politicians these days are lean and hungry and largely gutless wonders, where job one is pandering to enhance their longevity. It's very said, but true.

Time to hop into a time machine going backwards and bring back the machine political bosses.

[Torie]

Again, what’s preventing a future Republican administration from prosecuting Biden? He technically broke the wall as well- “I didn’t know they were classified” or “I didn’t bring them here on accident” is not an excuse that makes the action legal.

Actually, you're just wrong.  The statute specifies "willful retention."  It would probably have been better for you to educate yourself before posting.

Biden claims it wasn’t willful, but how do we know he isn’t lying?

How many times do we have to go through this - this really isn't about having the classified documents. It's that Trump *purposely* took them. Biden and Pence clearly did not do that. Trump's situation is completely different.

AND purposely kept them when the government signaled it was improper to hold them, AND actively obstructed Justice in cover-up, line, and witness tampering about retaining these sensitive documents!

Sorry, anyone who can't distinguish between these two is either room temperature iq, a completely dishonest political hack, or most likely both. And yes, you know full well if you fit into either or both categories.

Is Alan Dershowitz one or both? 

https://open.substack.com/pub/dersh/p/what-if-both-trump-and-his-prosecutors?r=8m32d&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email

Now that you have consumed and spit out hapless posters, take on a guy your own size, and shred him before our posters start channeling him.

Well, I will give you a tad of help just to help make it all fair. While The Dersh is in general right that special prosecutors are a bad idea, Jack Smith is the exception that proves the rule given his estimable self restraint. He would never, ever do an Alvin Bragg, and I suspect will not be going after that air brain Judge Cannon. OK, your turn, you take no prisoners junk yard dog litigator you. 

[Torie]

Is Alan Dershowitz one or both? 

Alan Dershowitz is one of the least trustworthy "lawyers" on the planet lmao

I've told that many times but Torie continues to treat him as a serious legal analyst.
I guess it must be a solidarity among seniors thing.

You just were unable to restrain yourself, weren't you? Surely there is a better way than an "ageist' lash out, the better to render me as non compis mentis in a court of law. How old are you btw?

Negative and conclusory statements among flame warriors may be self actualizing, but hardly enhancing to the public square. But then we all have our own priorities, here and in life. I am at peace with mine. I have come to actually like myself, despite my numerous characters flaws. May you get to that space, if not there yet.


Be well, and see you on the other side of the River Styx.

[Torie]

Again, what’s preventing a future Republican administration from prosecuting Biden? He technically broke the wall as well- “I didn’t know they were classified” or “I didn’t bring them here on accident” is not an excuse that makes the action legal.

Actually, you're just wrong.  The statute specifies "willful retention."  It would probably have been better for you to educate yourself before posting.

Biden claims it wasn’t willful, but how do we know he isn’t lying?

How many times do we have to go through this - this really isn't about having the classified documents. It's that Trump *purposely* took them. Biden and Pence clearly did not do that. Trump's situation is completely different.

AND purposely kept them when the government signaled it was improper to hold them, AND actively obstructed Justice in cover-up, line, and witness tampering about retaining these sensitive documents!

Sorry, anyone who can't distinguish between these two is either room temperature iq, a completely dishonest political hack, or most likely both. And yes, you know full well if you fit into either or both categories.

Is Alan Dershowitz one or both? 

https://open.substack.com/pub/dersh/p/what-if-both-trump-and-his-prosecutors?r=8m32d&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email

Now that you have consumed and spit out hapless posters, take on a guy your own size, and shred him before our posters start channeling him.

Well, I will give you a tad of help just to help make it all fair. While The Dersh is in general right that special prosecutors are a bad idea, Jack Smith is the exception that proves the rule given his estimable self restraint. He would never, ever do an Alvin Bragg, and I suspect will not be going after that air brain Judge Cannon. OK, your turn, you take no prisoners junk yard dog litigator you. 

I could have easily answered the dershowitz question before even reading the linked article as hack. Then I read that pablum. It is literally dog vomit level attempt at so-called legal analysis. It was the most obtuse level of what about ism that even fuzzy or osr could not sink o the depths of. It did not involve one iota of actual legal analysis. 120% unadulterated hackery.

And frankly, I'm probably being generous

LOL. Tell me what you really think. Don't hold back.

[Torie]

Just in case you missed it, Trump has flat out stated that not only is he comfortable with tyrants abroad, and won’t use US resources to oppose their agenda, but that he intends to emulate them domestically. And this man at the moment is a competitive candidate to make this nightmare come true.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/15/us/politics/trump-indictment-justice-department.html

“I will appoint a real special prosecutor to go after the most corrupt president in the history of the United States of America, Joe Biden, and the entire Biden crime family,” Mr. Trump said at his golf club in Bedminster, N.J., on Tuesday night after his arraignment earlier that day in Miami. “I will totally obliterate the Deep State.”

Mr. Trump’s message was that the Justice Department charged him only because he is Mr. Biden’s political opponent, so he would invert that supposed politicization. In reality, under Attorney General Merrick Garland, two Trump-appointed prosecutors are already investigating Mr. Biden’s handling of classified documents and the financial dealings of his son, Hunter.

But by suggesting the current prosecutors investigating the Bidens were not “real,” Mr. Trump appeared to be promising his supporters that he would appoint an ally who would bring charges against his political enemies regardless of the facts.

[Torie]

I pity his lawyers having to try argue a case from this.

Is it possible to for a plea bargain to be worked out without the consent of the defendant (not the prosecution really should be offering one, but I think the defense should be trying to get one, with or without Trump's consent)?

No, lawyers don't have that kind of power.

This. One can float trial balloons with a prosecutor that haven't been explicitly authorized by one's client as long as one advises the prosecutor that any such trial balloon is just that, and does not have authorization of a plea offer from one's client, but accepting or refusing a plea bargain is always the client's choice, not the lawyers.

That said, if a client is believed to be incompetent, then a lawyer not only can but arguably must seek a competency evaluation even over their clients objections, as there is presumably good reason to believe that such objections are of course not being made by a legally competent individual.

Trump without question has been and remains totally legally competent in the choices he makes in life, and arguably his "business plan" is quite rational given his needs and wants, so this speculation is nothing other than a frolic and detour.  I suspect most posters, and certainly you, are well aware of that.

If Trump were not Trump, given his resume, would he ever, ever, have been elected POTUS? At one time, I would have thought, and did think, absolutely not. How wrong I was. And thus into the pit we as a civil society society we went. Not sure it will ever recover while I am still here, but keep hope alive.

[Torie]

Fake recording! It is possible that Trump didn't have the document he described and was just jiving. Despite what Brett said, I don't recall anyone saying that Trump showed a document marked classified to them that was about Iran, as opposed to claiming he had it in his hands/pile that he was rustling through for show.

I wonder if it is typical that a warp speed trial date is set in criminal cases, and then due to claimed discovery needs, ends up being moved out a year or two. (Some legal types on TV have said they don't expect that trial to occur before the election.) Perhaps Badger can help us with that. How much can a defense counsel delay matters for strategic reasons?