Below is the column in the Messenger on the Trump indictment. As expected, Trump is already campaigning on the issue. In a rally in Georgia, Trump declared: “They’ve launched one witch hunt after another to try and stop our movement, to thwart the will of the American people. In the end, they’re not coming after me. They’re coming after you.” Trump may not be the first president to be arrested, but his case is already unprecedented. It could get even more wild in the months to come.
Here is the column:
“I will have to place you under arrest.” Those words to an American president have only been uttered once in history. And, no, it was not a line uttered at Mar-a-Lago. Those were the words of William Henry West, a Civil War-era African American soldier and later a police officer, when he arrested Ulysses S. Grant for speeding in a horse-drawn carriage on the streets of Washington, D.C. in 1872.
Grant had been warned previously about his speeding and, according to West, looked like “a schoolboy who had been caught in a guilty act by his teacher.”
Unlike Donald Trump, Grant did not proclaim, “I am an innocent man!” But, then again, he was not looking at charges that could bring as much as 20 years in prison. (Grant paid a $20 fine).
West and President Grant became friends. That also is not likely to occur between Trump and the Department of Justice (DOJ) special counsel, Jack Smith, who Trump has called a “rabid wolf.”
Many are celebrating what the Drudge Report suggested was “the downfall of the Don.” However, destroying Trump in a scandal is like trying to drown a manatee: Both are in their element.
The fact is that many people will see this indictment as confirmation of their worst expectations of either Trump or the Justice Department.
It will be difficult to get through a trial before the 2024 presidential election. Even if the Justice Department pushed for a trial, judges likely would balk at the notion of trying this case months before the election. Either way, Trump — if he won reelection to the White House — could give himself a pardon before or after any conviction.
How the Justice Department proceeds from this point will either confirm or rebut allegations of political bias.
One of the open questions will be the other part of Smith’s mandate. He was asked to look into criminal charges related to both the Jan. 6, 2021, riot in the Capitol and the classified documents which Trump allegedly held at his Mar-a-Lago home. Smith made fast work of the Mar-a-Lago part, but there is no indication of what is occurring on the other matter.
If Smith has found that there is no basis for criminal charges over Trump’s role on Jan. 6, it would be the final rejection of claims by the House of Representatives’ Jan. 6th Committee and by a host of politicians and pundits. The question is whether Smith will be as quick to resolve that question as he has been in alleging the crimes at Mar-a-Lago.
Regarding Mar-a-Lago, the reported inclusion of a charge under the Espionage Act is a bit surprising, given the novel legal issues surrounding the handling of such documents. However, the inclusion of false-statement and obstruction charges is what many of us have predicted all along. These are the favorite charges of federal prosecutors; they are easier to prove and can be presented as stand-alone offenses.
When Grant was arrested, he did not contest the charge. Either he was speeding or he was not. But these charges against Trump can have the same cut-and-dried look for jurors: Either a statement was true or it was not. While there will be a question of whether Trump or his lawyers were responsible for false representations to federal authorities about the alleged documents, the question for the jury is free from the factual and constitutional complexities suggested by his team.
Those charges will become even more challenging for Trump if, as rumored, Smith has secured the cooperation of individuals within the Trump team. Earlier, Smith reportedly compelled the appearance of Trump lawyers before the grand jury. There is also a leak suggesting that Smith has an audiotape of Trump referring to his possession of a classified document on Iran — and acknowledging that he could not show or discuss the contents.
For two years, I have said that the Mar-a-Lago charges — particularly obstruction — represent the greatest threat to Donald Trump. It remains baffling why Trump forced this issue over these documents rather than just give them all back. (He could still have gotten access to them from the National Archives.) He knew that he was unlikely to receive much deference from the DOJ. Yet, he allowed this collateral controversy to consume his campaign.
Once again, however, the campaign is all about Trump. Moreover, there could be a method to the madness, as Trump seeks to try this case before the public.
Indeed, the ultimate jury in this case could prove to be the American people. The 2024 election could become a referendum on this case. I have long maintained that presidents can pardon themselves, and Trump could well use his mugshot as a campaign poster.
One of the early issues for the court in Florida will be whether to gag the former president from campaigning on this matter. That could raise serious free-speech concerns and could prove one of the early appellate issues in the case if the court imposes strict limits on what Trump can say about it.
Trump, based on past behavior, is likely to invite rather than avoid such fights.
The Justice Department has done tremendous damage to itself — and, potentially, to this case — due to its prior history with Trump. FBI and Justice officials have shown open bias against him and have treated him differently than figures like former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. That record was further exposed recently by another special counsel, John Durham, who found that the Justice Department lacked a basis to launch the Russia-collusion investigation.
Polls show that the majority of Americans harbor serious doubts about the independence and integrity of the FBI. Many voters are skeptical over yet another criminal allegation just before a presidential election.
Trump is now facing the most serious criminal charges in his career. If successful and Trump is not pardoned by himself or one of his Republican competitors (or even by a magnanimous Joe Biden), it could be a lethal threat. At 76 years old, Trump would be unlikely to survive a prison stint even without the imposition of the maximum sentences allowed under these charges.
He will surrender on Tuesday — but that will be only the start of an existential fight for Trump.
Jonathan Turley, an attorney, constitutional law scholar and legal analyst, is the Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law at The George Washington University Law School.
“The classified documents Trump stored in his boxes included information regarding defense and weapons capabilities of both the United States and foreign countries; United States nuclear programs; potential vulnerabilities of the United States and its allies to military attack, and plans for possible retaliation in response to a foreign attack. The unauthorized disclosure of these classified documents could put at risk the national security of the United States, foreign relations, the safety of the United States military, and human sources and the continued viability of sensitive intelligence collection methods. … Trump stored his boxes containing classified documents in various locations at The Mar-a-Lago Club — including in a ballroom, a bathroom and shower, an office space, his bedroom, and a storage room. … Trump showed classified documents to others. … Trump endeavored to obstruct the FBI and grand jury investigations and conceal his continued retention of classified documents …”
This is what Trump-stans are defending.
The intelligence community determined that “several dozen emails containing classified information at the CONFIDENTIAL, SECRET and TOP SECRET/SAP level.” passed through Hillary Clinton’s server which the F.B.I. determined was likely hacked.
Given the way the judicial system deals with counts, Hillary Clinton committed a count of recklessness every time a confidential e-mail passed through her server.
So you arguably have an interesting question in legal parlance:
A person with 8 or 9 hundred counts of recklessness causing substantial harm
vs. A person with 9 or 10 intentional counts causing less harm.
We don’t know how much harm each caused, and it would have been fine with me if Clinton had been charged. Unlike the Trump-stans, I’m not defending her.
800,000 murdered in cold blood. Bill apologized. For what?
You understand he is a war criminal.
What war crime did he commit? Be specific.
He violated the Proxmire Act.
Nope.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1091
Yup. Keep reading.
Or, just tell us why he lied to the Rwandans and the world. With what exactly did he respond, albeit too late, to prevent the holocaust?
Another example of our deep state protecting Left-wingers: “In 2020, the Department
declassified some documents related to a 2015 investigation of possible illegal campaign
contributions. In that inst~nce, the FBI provided a defensive briefing to the Clinton
campaign. 1719 Some have argued that the decisions to provide a defensive briefing in that
investigation but not in the Crossfire Hurricane investigation were inconsistent.” No! Really?
[t]he obligation to prevent the commission of the crime of genocide
is imposed by the Genocide Convention on any State party which,
in a given situation, has it in its power to contribute to restraining
in any degree the commission of genocide.
It is time to bring charges against Bill Clinton
the Genocide Convention on any State party, Bill Clinton, which,
in a given situation, has it in its power to contribute to restraining
in any degree the commission of genocide.
any state party, bill clinton, when he has the power to restrain the slaughter
CAPITAL GAMES
As a fellow who wrote a book contending that the current president is a serial prevaricator, I often am asked by conservative critics: So did you ever call Bill Clinton a liar? My reply: Yes; I am a nonpartisan accuser. But I’m not talking about the obvious lies. Back in those days, I did say that Clinton’s lies about his affair with intern Monica Lewinsky were wrong and serious–but not worth impeachment. But what was more outrageous was a lie Clinton told about one of the greatest failures of his presidency: his inaction regarding the Rwanda genocide of 1994.
Why revisit this today? Two reasons. First, this month marks the tenth anniversary of the start of that horrific event, in which half a million people, mainly of the Tutsi minority, were slaughtered over three months by Hutu extremists, in one of the most time-efficient massacres of the 20th Century. Second, the National Security Archive, an independent, nongovernmental research institute that collects and analyzes government records, recently released a report that provides more evidence for the case that Clinton lied to the people of Rwanda.
That lie came four years after the genocide. During a 1998 presidential tour of Africa, Clinton stopped at the airport in Kigali, Rwanda, and issued an apology. Sort of. Speaking of those nightmarish months in the spring of 1994, he said, “All over the world there were people like me sitting in offices who did not fully appreciate the depth and speed with which you were being engulfed by this unimaginable terror.” He acknowledged that the United States and the international community had not moved quickly enough in response to the horrors under way. To emphasize his sorrow, he said, “Never again.”
Clinton seemed to be taking responsibility, but actually he was making an excuse. He had inadequately reacted to the genocide, he said, because he had not really known what had been happening in Rwanda. That was a disingenuous cop-out.
The National Security Archive report, based on documents the group obtained, notes:
“Throughout the crisis, considerable U.S. resources–diplomatic, intelligence and military–and sizable bureaucracies of the U.S. government were trained on Rwanda. This system collected and analyzed information and sent it up to decision-makers so that all options could be properly considered and ‘on the table.’ Officials, particularly at the middle levels, sometimes met twice daily, drafting demarches, preparing press statements, meeting or speaking with foreign counterparts and other interlocutors, and briefing higher-ups. Indeed, the story of Rwanda for the U.S. is that officials knew so much, but still decided against taking action or leading other nations to prevent or stop the genocide. Despite Rwanda’s low ranking in importance to U.S. interests, Clinton administration officials had tremendous capacity to be informed–and were informed–about the slaughter there.”
The report, written by William Ferroggiaro, documents the pre-genocide warnings and concurrent reports of the massacre that Clinton’s administration received. The National Security Archive, under the Freedom of Information Act, requested copies of the Presidential Daily Briefs for this period. The PDB is a highly classified document written for the president. (The current Bush administration refused to let the House and Senate intelligence committees even look at an August 6, 2001, PDB that mentioned Osama bin Laden and hijacking when the committees were conducting their 9/11 investigation.) These PDBs would show precisely what Clinton read each day about Rwanda. But the Archive’s request for the PDBs was denied. It did, however, obtain copies of the National Intelligence Daily, which is also classified but has a wider circulation. NIDs are distributed to several hundred government policymakers six days a week. It is a fair assumption that they often reflect what is contained in the PDBs. And the NIDs gathered by the Archive indicate that the administration was aware a genocide was occurring in Rwanda. An April 23 NID referred to a negotiation “effort to stop the genocide, which relief workers say is spreading south.” The April 26 NID item on Rwanda, entitled “Humanitarian Disaster Unfolding,” reported that the “Red Cross estimates that 100,000 to 500,000 people, mostly Tutsi, have been killed in the ethnic bloodletting” and that “eyewitness accounts from areas where nearly all Tutsi residents were killed support the higher estimate.”
But Clinton did not have to depend on the top-secret PDBs or NIDs to learn that there was a genocide transpiring in Rwanda. As the Archive notes, “beginning April 8th, the massacres in Rwanda were reported on the front pages of major newspapers and on radio and television broadcasts almost daily, including the major papers read by U.S. officials and policy elites.” And at that time human rights activists in Washington–who had close relationships with national security adviser Tony Lake and staffmembers of Clinton’s national security council–were pounding on the doors of the White House demanding action and suggesting options. The United States could have provided logistical support to the small U.N. peacekeeping force in the region. It could have deployed jamming devices to block the radio transmissions of the Hutu leaders coordinating the slaughter. It could have pressured France and Belgium to use their influence with the Hutus. It could have merely spoken out.
In the first weeks of this tragedy, human rights advocates urged Clinton to issue a clear and forceful declaration that a genocide was happening and that the killers could expect to be tracked down and tried for crimes against humanity. But the Clinton administration dithered for weeks over whether to use the G-word, for doing so would have compelled the administration, under international law, to take direct steps to stop the killings. But after the disaster in Somalia, Clinton had no stomach for becoming involved in another messy conflict in Africa. In public, he had more to say about the caning of a young American in Singapore than the murders of hundreds of thousands in Rwanda.
As the National Security Archive report points out, Clinton was being pressed by prominent individuals to take action. On April 21, Rwandan human rights activist Monique Mujawamariya, whom Clinton had welcomed to the White House five months earlier, implored him to act against the “campaign” of “genocide against the Tutsis.” She argued that the United States had “a moral and legal treaty obligation to ‘suppress and prevent’ genocide.” Members of Congress lobbied Clinton as well. On May 13, Senators Paul Simon and James Jeffords sent a letter to Clinton criticizing his lack of “leadership” and declaring “swift and sound decision-making is needed.” They urged Clinton to impose sanctions, establish an arms embargo, and boost the U.N. forces in Rwanda and allow them to intervene more directly. “An end to the slaughter is not possible without this action,” they wrote.
The National Security Archive report notes, “Although stated policy was that Rwanda did not affect traditional vital or national interests before or even during the genocide, considerable resources were nevertheless available and employed to ensure that policymakers had real-time information for any decision they would make. In sum, the routine–let alone crisis–performance of diplomats, intelligence officers and systems, and military and defense personnel yielded enough information for policy recommendations and decisions. That the Clinton administration decided against intervention at any level was not for lack of knowledge of what was happening in Rwanda.”
Four years after the killings, Clinton told the Rwandans (and the world) that he had not tried to stop the genocide because he had not known what was truly occurring. Ignorance was not the reason. It had been a political decision. Clinton was fibbing to the survivors of genocide. And this deceptive remark sparked practically no outrage. Today, ten years after the Rwanda massacre, the inaction of the United States and the world community should not be forgotten, nor should Clinton’s untruthful excuse.
David Corn
He violated the Proxmire Act. He lied to cover up his violations. He coerced his staff to lie. He conspired with them.
given all the international concern about what
looked likely to happen at Srebrenica, given Milogevic’s own observations to Mladi6, which made it clear that the dangers were
known and that these dangers seemed to be of an order that could
.suggest intent to commit genocide, unless brought under control, it
must have been clear that there was a serious risk of genocide in
Srebrenica. Yet the Respondent has not shown that it took any initiative to prevent what happened, or any action on its part to avert
the atrocities which were committed.
For Example
He lied to the world when he said he didn’t respond soon enough. What action did he take that wasn’t performed on time to stop the carnage? Be specific.
I understand you will leave blank the blocks in which you can respond. Left-wing violent Anti-American militias cannot address his war crimes. Never have.
Chasing Trump around the world while paying Bill one hundred million dollars is illustrative of your efforts to destroy this country. It is why people vote for Trump. It illuminates your hatred for our nation.
Again, you’ve presented no evidence that Bill Clinton committed war crimes.
“It may seem strange to you here, especially the many of you who lost members of your family, but all over the world there were people like me sitting in offices, day after day after day, who did not fully appreciate the depth and the speed with which you were being engulfed by this unimaginable terror.” Clinton is a filthy, disgusting LIAR
HE KNEW all along.
The United Nations Security Council established the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda to “prosecute persons responsible for genocide and other serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of Rwanda and neighbouring States, between 1 January 1994 and 31 December 1994”.
Read on. Apparently the truth isn’t something you are eager to find. Turning his back on Rwanda violated the Act.
Apparently you don’t understand the text of the Act you’re referring to. Condemn Clinton all you want (I’ll condemn him for plenty myself), but he did not commit a war crime.
Read the Act, the whole thing. It holds responsible people in official positions of power when they had the resources to restrain the criminals, and yet did nothing.
I think a hacked server likely more dangerous than hard copy on an estate — though both are unacceptable. And simply stating that it would have been fine with you if Clinton had been charged is a bit dismissive of the problem.
A genuine concern about a two-tiered system of Justice has emerged. And it is causing an erosion of trust in government institutions.
Comey, July 5: “Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.
“In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.”
That’s a difference in evidence, not a two-tiered system of justice.
Comey the lying Russian Collusion hoaxer. Lies all the way around. Your heroes are traitors..
I said there was a genuine concern about a two-tiered system of Justice — and that is based on multiple past actions. Not this particular case. And because of that, the government will have to go the extra mile to show they are not doing the same thing again.
You make an excellent point and Comey’s quote is a good one. But within the context of past government misconduct concerning Trump, you have an additional complication here involving something Comey left out. There is a difference in harm to consider. If you think a hacked server is less harmful than hard copy improperly located on an estate, you are entitled to your opinion. But I think it is a precarious one.
You can certainly argue that Clinton caused more harm through recklessness than Trump did through intent.
In terms of an adversary actually seeing sensitive documents, it’s a good bet it happened in the Clinton case and that it is unlikely in the Trump case.
So you have Trump being more culpable via intent.
While Clinton’s actions were more dangerous and caused more harm.
That’s going to be a political problem. As some of the statutes involved in the two cases do not require intent, Clinton almost certainly would have been found guilty if charged.
Charge both or charge neither is an argument that people are going to hear a lot in the coming days.
A home-brewed server that is not TEMPEST certified is far and away a more serious breach of security. If you don’t believe me, just look at what the PRC has been doing lately. Those surveillance balloons and Cuban listening posts are there to exploit this kind of vulnerability. Emanation Security (EMSEC) is actually a thing, although you’d never know that from watching cable or network news.
All the material was declassified by President Trump. No matter how much you hate it, that is the reality.
No, that’s not the reality. Trump is on tape saying that he has material that remained classified because he didn’t declassify it. He’s quoted saying so in the indictment, which you apparently haven’t read.
Bill Clinton apologized for not acting sooner. 800,000 slaughtered. What did Bill do? Sooner? Or later, what did he do?
We do not have the tape. We do not have complete context and we do not know what Trump referred to or if he was being accurate in his use of the term.
You cannot change do not have into have.
THE POWER – UTTERLY, CATEGORICALLY AND EXCLUSIVELY
______________________________________________________
Article II, Section 1
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
___________________________________________________________________
The President alone wields the executive branch power of classification, declassification and archiving of materials.
The legislative branch has no legal basis to usurp any aspect, facet or degree of the power of the executive branch.
No legislation usurping the power of the executive branch is constitutional.
No legislation usurping the power of the executive branch to classify, declassify and archive material is constitutional.
how many Russians had access to Trump’s bathroom?
Would you provide a reference for the content of the classified docs Trump had. I have not seen anything from an official source on this. Ditto Biden.
There aren’t any charges for mishandling classified documents.
Why is that all the DoJ wants to talk about.?
“The classified documents Trump stored in his boxes included information regarding defense and weapons capabilities of both the United States and foreign countries; United States nuclear programs; potential vulnerabilities of the United States and its allies to military attack, and plans for possible retaliation in response to a foreign
You realize that NOBODY has seen any of the these documents to confirm the narrative being pushed by the corrupt DoJ, FBI, and Special Counsel.
Why do you believe these people?
Talk about a Banana Republic. A trial where only the prosecutors get to see the evidence.
Have you crafted a lie about why the DoJ is leaking all this “evidence” to the media. Public trial by leaks. Strange for a slam dunk conviction.
Actions prove this is political, not legitimate.
Bowing Down to Authoritarian Bullying Mouthy leaders like tRump
is generally Symptomatic of Under-Educated, Weak Mealy-Minded individuals.
Buying into and accepting Constant Known Lying of Sociopaths like tRump
is Highly Indicative of Severe Inadequate-Personality Disorders.
Why is the Deep Deep State “Swamp” so infuriated by Real President Donald J. Trump?
Answer:
The Deep Deep State “Swamp” couldn’t BUY Real President Donald J. Trump.
“The Metropolitan Police Department in Washington D.C. has confirmed to Congress that it had plainclothes officers at the Capitol during the Jan. 6 riot and that at least one was captured on video exhorting the crowd”
It demonstrates that J6 was at least partly a set up and that Pelosi et.al withheld information and was involved in accelerating a riot. It also shows that the J6 committee was a farce.
https://rumble.com/v2en5uk-january-6-care-package.html
Most action starts around 5 min.
Article at: https://justthenews.com/government/congress/loudermilk-mpd-had-plain-clothed-officers-capitol-crowd-jan-6-2021?utm_source=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter
s. meyer….Thank you!
Let’s not forget the J6 committee releasing edited versions of the capital video to push their narrative.
Fun fact about the Jan 6 committee. Not a single congress member was allowed access to the video, and had no part in choosing what was going to be used during the made for tv miniseries.
Did you mention that Nanny Peeloosely’s daughter just happened to have a camera at the ready at the crucial hour on that crucial day – the very day Nanny Peeloosely deliberately refused National Guard support for, causing it to further appear that she was preparing to allow the Capitol to be overrun, after multiple “fake” “witch hunts” and two “fake” impeachments against Real President Donald J. Trump?
_________________________________
“You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”
– Rahm Emanuel
Oscar Meyer, more fundamentally, while a former president may, hypothetically, be proven to have committed treason and espionage with and for the benefit of a declared enemy, the following is the fact:
THE POWER – UTTERLY, CATEGORICALLY AND EXCLUSIVELY
______________________________________________________
Article II, Section 1
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
___________________________________________________________________
The President alone wields the executive branch power of classification, declassification and archiving of materials.
The legislative branch has no legal basis to usurp any aspect, facet or degree of the power of the executive branch.
No legislation usurping the power of the executive branch is constitutional.
No legislation usurping the power of the executive branch to classify, declassify and archive material is constitutional.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Hillary Clinton, Mike Pence and Joe Biden had no power to classify, declassify or archive material.
Jonathan: I agree. Proving the Espionage Act violation will be hardest to prove. But the other charges (obstruction and false statements) are not that factually complicated. And I agree it is “baffling” why Trump just didn’t return everything requested by NARA/DOJ. He could have avoided prosecution like Pence and Biden. Trump’s defiance can, perhaps, be explained by his pathological narcissistic personality. He believes that normal legal norms don’t apply to him. He acts like a mafia Don who lies and cheats thinking he will never be caught.
What you don’t mention is that the judge in Florida assigned to the case is District Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee in the last days of the Trump administration. It should be recalled Judge Cannon presided over the case in which Trump challenged the right of the FBI/DOJ to look at the docs seized by the FBI at Mar-a-Lago. Trump falsely claimed the docs were “privileged”. Cannon agreed and in bizarre rulings she appointed a Special Master to review everything. The DOJ appealed Cannon’s rulings to the 11th Circuit. A three-judge panel slapped down all of Cannon’s rulings saying her actions were an interference in an ongoing criminal investigation. The Q is whether Cannon will voluntarily recuse herself from this case because of her conflicts over the first case? What if she doesn’t? Will the DOJ appeal?. Stay tuned because this case is going to be a wild ride!
You also failed to mention that Walt Nauta, Trump’s personal aide, is a named defendant in Jack Smith’s indictment. That’s because Nauta helped Trump hide docs and lied about it. Why name just Nauta and not other co-conspirators? Because I think the DOJ wants Nauta to flip and testify against Trump. That would make Jack Smith’s case open and shut. But if Nauta is really loyal to his boss he will refuse–especially if Trump promises to pay all his legal bills. But facing possibly 10-20 years in prison might cause Nauta to think twice.
In federal court a defendant has a right to a “speedy trial”–70 days from an indictment. But few cases a tried in that period. I think it will probably be a year before the case actually goes to trial–well into the 2024 presidential campaign. In the meantime Trump will campaign claiming the indictment as a badge of honor. We know what that campaign will look like. At the GOP convention in Georgia yesterday Trump proclaimed that Jack Smith’s indictment was brought by “radical left lunatics who want to interfere with an election”. Trump’s speech was greeted by thunderous applause form his MAGA supporters. A sign of what to expect from Trump through out the presidential campaign.
Finally, as to the polls you claim a “majority of Americans harbor serious doubts and independence and integrity of the FBI”. You cite The Hill that refers to a Rasmussen poll that found “44% of Likely US voters say the FBI raid on Trump’s Florida home made them trust the FBI less”. That’s not a “majority”! Other polls show just the reverse. A recent Yahoo-You Gov. poll showed 63% of Americans called Trump’s hoarding of top secret docs a serious crime. The same poll showed 62% don’t think Trump should be allowed to serve as president if he’s convicted. Quinnipiac and CNN polls showed similar results. It’s ludicrous to imply that maybe Jack Smith should have taken a poll before indicting Trump/Nauta. You know that the DOJ does not make its charging decisions based on polls.
Its breathtaking you would cite a poll that actually doesn’t support your claim that the FBI has been “weaponized” to go after Trump and conservatives in general. So far Jordan/Comer in the GOP dominated House have been unable to substantiate your claims against the FBI. But that won’t stop you from continuing to make unfounded claims. It’s what you’re paid to do!
>”But the other charges (obstruction and false statements) are not that factually complicated.”
Indeed. One can not obstruct an investigation until there is one. Nor can one make a false statement if they’ve not been asked a question.
The 1917 Espionage Act, otoh, is an blatantly unconstitutional archaic relic that been used to silence critics and punish whistleblowers since its inception, imo. Hope this goes to the SCOTUS without delay.
*Id throw in the extra-judicial FISA court for constitutional muster .. . and where, exactly, the buck stops on the classification of illegal and unconstitutional ‘national security’ information.
Dennis – you say: “It’s ludicrous to imply that maybe Jack Smith should have taken a poll before indicting Trump/Nauta.” No, he should not have taken a poll. He should have looked at how previous cases of mishandling classified data have been handled, e.g., Sandy Berger, Gen. David Petraeus, Hillary Clinton, James Comey, and (I would say) Barack Obama. Equal application of the law distinguishes “law” from “edicts” which can take the form of law but which are only applied against political opponents. When Trump campaigns for President in 2024, his slogan should be: “A nation of laws or a banana republic? You choose.”
If a cop or a prosecutor decided to conduct a criminal investigation targeting Black people or gay people or Muslims, and if, in the course of such an investigation, the prosecutor uncovered serious and provable violations of the law, any resulting prosecutions would likely be thrown out of court by a judge. The 14th amendment to the Constitution requires equal protection under the law. A prosecutor may not target a certain demographic group for investigation with the hope of finding criminal activity.
Let’s hope that the judge in the Trump case rules that 14th amendment also prohibits a prosecutor—or a group of prosecutors—from targeting a specific individual for investigation with the hope of finding criminal activity.
OT, a police officer in Reading, PA didn’t like someone reciting a bible verse in public, so he arrested the speaker on a false charge of disorderly conduct. After a review of the video evidence, the authorities dropped the charge, but now they have to worry about being sued. Ugh, someone should instruct officers on Americans’ constitutional rights.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/man-arrested-citing-bible-verse-protest-pride-event-video-evidence-sinks-case
. . . Republicans are more trusted to protect democracy than Democrats . . .
Dems’ renewed attempt to kick Clarence Thomas off SCOTUS is backfiring on them despite regime media acting as their propagandists.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/renewed-justice-thomas-attacks-will-fuel-voter-distrust-of-democrats-despite-media-narrative-expert
It would be nice to get a good objective analysis, if that’s possible, as to the national security threats regarding Hillary Clinton’s unsecured e-mail server, which was likely hacked, as opposed to Trump’s improper location for classified information. Once a server is hacked, you get everything. To what extent was Mar-A-Lago “hacked?”
Harm is an important element in the criminal law, if not in terms of the statute, then at least in terms of sentencing. And it is an odd circumstance indeed when one incident is more harmful than another, yet there is no punishment for one, and multi-decades of punishment for the other.
Lest you think me a Trump apologist, my view is that the country is better off without either of these two clowns.
To add a little levity to the seriousness of this matter: the Cafeteria at the Justice Department has to be running out of Ham Sandwiches!
Using a few $10 words, ADROITNESS must be the moniker of the COGNOMMENS of the justice department or said as, we are Lawyers and Constitutionalist. Yea Sure!
Bug is writing his idiocies in his memoir of idiocies:
He replied to the comment: “Trump lies “they’re not coming after me. They’re coming after you.” with his typical lack of fundamental knowledge: He says: “The DOJ isn’t coming after the American electorate.”
Bug you forget how the DOJ came after the parents of school children. You forget a lot more but that is enough. When your post is deleted, this one will continue to stand.
Bug responds: “I’m banned on this site… I didn’t write what you think I did.”
But I copied what you wrote and that was clear. What also is clear is that your response will disappear and mine will remain.
The comment “Trump lies “they’re not coming after me. They’re coming after you.” has not disappeared.
That is because you are confused. The Bug confused you. Isn’t that swell.
It’s too early to tell what is going to happen, but past precedent shows that the Espionage Act is not written in stone. If it were, Daniel Ellsworth would be rotting in a Federal prison. Jack Smith has a history of partisan prosecution and the one case he won against a prominent Republican was overturned by the Supreme Court, where this is headed if the lower courts don’t toss it. If there’s one thing this is going to do, it will be to open the eyes of the American public about the dubious role of the DOJ and it’s investigative arm, the FBI. Both organizations were created under dubious circumstances, the DOJ under the corrupt Grant and the FBI under Teddy Roosevelt, although it’s predecessor came about under McKinley. Teddy used McKinley’s assassination to increase the former agency’s power. Woodrow Wilson gave them the power to investigate espionage but it wasn’t until World War II that they went wild with that power. It is now apparent that the FBI has become a tool of the Democratic Party.
Yes, making false statements and lying to the FBI are the agencies primary tools of getting convictions, which they get through plea pardoning. If they goes to trial, it’s not going to be in Washington, DC where the jury pool is solidly Democratic, It’ll be in Florida where there is a strong anti-communist sentiment. In the unlikely event Trump is convicted of anything, it’ll go to the Supreme Court which already has a history of throwing out Espionage Act convictions.
The only case that deserves dismissal more is Bragg’s case in NY.
You’re going to have a “boy who cried wolf” problem here. And the F.B.I. and the Department of Justice have only themselves to blame for that.
And you can throw in the likes of Bragg as well.
We have crossed the rubicon. We are now officially a third world country where the party in power uses the levers of the state to eliminate the opposition. Garland is the Beria of modern America. He would employ similar tactics to any Republican the poses a threat to Biden. HRC destroyed cell phone with hammers and bleached computer hard drives with classified information with no consequences. Biden has kept classified material for 40 years. No problem according to the MSM
Correct. The comparison between the documents that Biden moved from DC to various locations and those that Trump moved to his residence is an “apples to oranges” comparison. Biden had no authority to move any government documents, given his status first as a Senator and then as a VP. Nor did he have ANY authority to declassify ANY of those documents.
The socks case, as it’s called, was a judicial review of a FOIA case brought by Judicial Watch against the National Archives that was sued by Judicial Watch for tape recordings made by President Clinton and his historian while Clinton was in office. When Clinton left the presidency, he took the tapes with him. Judicial Watch claimed that they were government not personal records but District Judge Amy Berman Jackson ruled that she nor the Archives could make that determination and that the Presidential Records Act said that the sole judge of what are government records and what are personal records is the POTUS and his judgement on the issue is not reviewable by a court.
Jackson’s description of the PRA in the JW case is quite extensive, deeply and thoroughly referenced and no doubt would have significant bearing on Trump’s case. In fact, after reviewing her lengthy memorandum opinion (see: https://casetext.com/case/judicial-watch-inc-v-natl-archives-records-admin) it’s quite obvious that her impression of what Congress’s intent was in enacting the PRA was not to criminalize the behavior of presidents past and present in their handling of records and documents. The Judicial Branch, she says, is limited in what it can review of the behavior of the Executive Branch, as Congress and the Constitution invested the success of each on their independence from one another.
Whatever documents were kept at Mar-a-Lago by Trump were at some point in his presidential term given to him or otherwise placed in his possession as president. Arguably, whatever status they had at the time he first encountered them as president did not somehow turn into a pumpkin when he left the ball. No, once in his possession – while POTUS – they were given a status that was retained even after they were shipped to the president’s residence after he left office. There is no prevailing relevant law that says otherwise.
Jackson dismisses the claim made by Judicial Watch that the court should rule on the National Archives role and responsibility in demanding that the president turn over government records protected by and defined by the PRA. Jackson said that she cannot find that requirement or responsibility in the law for the Archives to make such a determination. If Archives lacks this requirement or authority, how can a court enforce a requirement that does not exist? Then, she reverts to her original assessment to say that the president, not the Archives or anyone else and surely not a court, has the authority to declare what is a government record and what is a personal record.
This indeed is a very interesting case and probably explains why Garland and Smith had to resort to using the Espionage Act instead of the PRA or Federal Record Act. The PRA and FRA are essentially weak acts on the issue of enforcement. As Jackson suggests, Congress intended to leave compliance with these acts up to the elected executives themselves, which is how it should be. Allowing judicial review of purely executive decision making, whether on large or small items, would produce chaos.
So, the big question for the Judiciary – and one which I estimate there are plenty of precedent cases on point – is how appropriate, sound, or constitutionally allowable is it to use a statute intended for one thing to prosecute someone for a violation of another statute that considers the acts involved to be civil and not judicially reviewable. It seems to me that, at a minimum, this would be a circumvention of the intent of Congress – a criterion always and everywhere dispositive when deciding the reasonableness of a criminal charge.
In my layman’s view, what this means to Trump’s case is as if the government were to file federal tax law violations against a shoplifter who steals a a quart of vodka because the federal government levies a tax on alcohol. Huh? You wouldn’t be permitted to bring such a suit to federal court because it would be an outrageous construction – or misconstruction – of a federal statute to go after something intened to be addressed on a local level and under different statutes.
Trump would be wise to demand a speedy trial and make these claims to the trial court or, as necessary, to the appellate court. His lawyers should consider an affirmative defense, which is one that admits to the claims of the government but not the unlawfulness of such claims. It cuts though the BS and gets to the core of the case quickly.
The argument is simple. If Congress wanted to include acts committed by Trump as described in the indictment to be criminalized, it would have inserted the appropriate language for this in the act it specifically directed toward Presidential Records – i.e., the Presidential Records Act. That Congress elected to ignore the accts charged against Trump in that statute or the Federal Records Act, a similar statute with a broader application, is a straightforward statement of intent – i.e., that such acts should not be criminalized absent additional crimianl acts, such as selling or disposing of protected materials to an enemy power, etc. Likewise, the Espionage Act under which the key counts in the Trump indictment were brought, was enacted by Congress over a hundred years ago to address a decidedly different set of actions that have nothing whatsoever to do with the current case against Trump.
Conclusion: Indictment dismissed on the grounds of outrageous government conduct..
How the Justice Department proceeds from this point will either confirm or rebut allegations of political bias.
And how the leopard proceeds from this point will either confirm or rebut allegations that it has spots.
John Brennan and James Clapper both lied under oath to Congress. Andrew McCabe lied to federal investigators. James Comey 245 times under oath claimed ”I don’t know/remember”, as did Hillary a kahjillion times. Adam Schiff, Nancy Pelosi, Jerry Nadler, et al lied as Members of Congress to Americans as have Merrick Garland, Joseph Biden, Hunter Biden, and many many others. If Trump is to be charged for violating the law, he should be investigated but only after the aforementioned because chronology of events dictate it. Justice works that way, not that the DOJ, FBI, CIA, Obama / Biden’s Deep State GAF about justice
America is not a banana republic for one simple reason. Banana republics don’t have an armed citizenry nor the Second Amendment. When Americans cede that inalienable right, then it becomes a banana republic. We should not allow that to happen…ever
I’m not surprised that Trump failed to select alternative methods for retaining the substance of the documents because he’s ignorant of the subtle ways of D.C. He’s shown that all along as I suspected when I voted for him because the little girl from Wisner Avenue in Park Ridge, IL., otherwise known as Hillary Rodham has from her teenage years always been a conniving unprincipled schemer. The real concern in this country should be the candidates for the presidency who’ve been bottom dwellers in the barrel for years, whether they’re Dumbocrats or Repewblicans. Biden laboring under his brain operations is no prize but neither was Obummer. Oh well, empires generally last about 250 years.
You have stated the proper political analysis, and the difficulties the country finds itself in.
The proper analysis of Trump and the 2016 election all along was this: A substantial percentage of the electorate determined that a con man and a game show host offered no worse than the offerings of the two major political parties.
Although Trump has run with an R next to his name, the RNC and the DNC were never behind him. Yet he wins. That is extraordinary. It’s never happened before. And it is a discussion that has been avoided by media and establishment politicians everywhere.
General Nuisance, “I’m not surprised that Trump failed to select alternative methods for retaining the substance of the documents because he’s ignorant of the subtle ways of D.C.” So you’re saying you’ve always known Trump is stupid? He’s on tape saying he knew what he was supposed to do. He just didn’t care.
Dear Prof Turley,
Afaict, there are exceptions to every rule, except the 1917 Espionage Act. As I understand it, there is no ‘public defense’ under the Espionage Act.
For example, young cuz Ed Snowden has offered, several times, to return home and stand trial by a jury of his peers. Discovery, cross examination and all that entails. He was rebuffed, of course. .. can’t have the top secret, illegal and unconstitutional NSA/CIA programs he exposed argued in a court of law. Ditto for those hapless ‘tortured’ souls still at Gitmo.
If Ulysses S. Grant had been racing his horse drawn carriage down the street to put out a fire .. . I would have cut him some slack. (love that story, btw.)
I suspect the boiling frogs fairness ‘issue’ between Biden’s classified ‘stray papers’ and Trump’s ‘espionage’ will never see the light of day. VP Dick Cheney outed covert CIA operative Valerie Plame, Gen. Patereaus’ ‘black book’ contained TS/NOFORN ‘sources and methods’, Hillary Clinton conducted TS business of Sec. of State on an open server, Sen. Joe Biden had classified ‘stray papers’ ffs, etc., etc. and they are all treated like royalty. Which they are. .. for all practical purposes.
In the ‘age of rage’, one thing, and only one thing, will convince an extremely skeptical people concerning the competence and moral rectitude of their leaders. Namely, the extent to which they say what they mean and mean what they say.
*free the Manatees
Juries don’t like abusive and selective law enforcement by cops and prosecutors who work for authoritarian political regimes. Examples regarding Trump include a never-ending litany of investigations for the last eight years, a series of coordinated lies propagated through the news media about collusion with a foreign government, a leftist prosecutor who neither took nor recommended any action after two years and tens of millions of dollars, two failed impeachment trials, multiple, unannounced, early-morning, FBI SWAT team invasions of the homes of friends and associates, imprisonment of friends and associates, government-led censorship coordinated with corporate news organizations and social media organizations, the overriding of attorney-client privilege to obtain documents, and the absence of interest in widespread criminal infractions by Democrats.
Funny how after over 30 years of republican investigations, and 10’s of millions being spent going after Hillary, and finding nothing, the republicans are now crying “political prosecution”. about Trump. Durham spent almost 4 years going after anything he could, and did not prove anything, but Trump being indicted is “political bias”. And for those who think they did find evidence, please show the indictments, pleas, convictions by said republican or DOJ “investigations”. Those who yelled “lock her up” are now the ones even after indictments say Trump is being treated “unfairly.”