Post New

Jack Smith, the special counsel who is bringing the case, will make a brief statement to the press this afternoon. Ahead of his statement, the indictment of Donald Trump was unsealed. There's a lot in the 49-page indictment but of note: Trump illegally kept documents concerning "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."

Plus, each count of the indictment lists the documents left lying around at Mar-a-Lago, including Top Secret, HCS-P, ORCON-USGOV, NOFORN, TK, SI, and Special Handling documents. Those documents pertain to military capabilities of foreign countries (annotated in black marker), military activities and planning of foreign countries, the nuclear capabilities of a foreign country, military contingency planning of the U.S., and on and on and on.

Finally, there's a ton of evidence of obstruction.

Wowzer.


https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscour...

I've only just read through the indictment, but I've got some initial thoughts:

- As we discussed (at length!) in other threads, all of the charges directly related to possessing the classified documents are under the "unlawful retention" of defense information section. IOW, they're not alleging that Trump committed a crime by taking classified documents with him from the White House, or keeping classified documents in an unsecured location. They're only charging him for breaking the law when he refused to give the documents relating to defense information back. That's why there's only 31 counts on that point, instead of over 300 (the number of documents with classification markings he originally had) or 100 (the number he held back after returning some to the Archive) - only 31 of the 100+ classified documents related to national defense. It also obviates any question of whether the documents remained classified or not, since that's not an element of the statute.

- The conspiracy and obstruction charges are brutal. They're alleging that Trump gave the order to move boxes, hide documents, and mislead his attorney. He knew the government was trying to get the docs back and had a subpoena, and he allegedly ordered his "body man" to hide half of it. And they apparently have a contemporaneous text message from said bodyman telling a Trump family member that Trump had told him to move the boxes. Not great, Bob....

- ....BUT! there isn't a factual allegation that Trump was aware of the specific contents of the boxes or documents. That's probably Trump's strongest defense, at least as to those 31 counts: arguing that in order to establish that he "willfully" retained national defense documents, the government has to prove he knew they were national defense documents. The DOJ will certainly argue that hiding/moving the boxes is circumstantial evidence that he knew he was doing wrong, but they don't have a smoking gun to put knowledge of the contents in his cranium.....

- ...EXCEPT! we have a co-defendant in said bodyman. He's looking at a long, long stretch on the obstruction, concealing and lying charges if the DOJ can get a conviction. Unlike Trump, he can't wriggle off by claiming lack of knowledge or denying he gave the order. Lots of pressure on him to flip....

- ...AND! we have Trump Attorneys #1-3 being let off the hook completely. The statement of facts paints them as having been deceived by the concealment scheme, not participating in it. And clearly Trump Attorney 1 is cooperating with DOJ, giving them information about what Trump directed them to do with the documents that were located in the storage room.

* * *

So all in all, a mixed bag if I'm trying to defend DJT. I don't like that they have eyewitnesses and a contemporary text to support a claim that Trump knew that boxes were being moved around. And I'm really unhappy that they were able to bring charges against Nauta. But I'm pretty encouraged by the fact that there isn't anything in the indictment to show DJT having actual knowledge of any of the specific 31 documents, and are instead bringing in the tape and some other incidents as circumstantial evidence to show DJT knew he had stuff he shouldn't be showing people.

Plus, each count of the indictment lists the documents left lying around at Mar-a-Lago, including Top Secret, HCS-P, ORCON-USGOV, NOFORN, TK, SI, and Special Handling documents.

You can't have that stuff unless as President he declassified it. Looks like he didn't.

Looking forward to the new ZEAL with which guarding the nation's secrets should always have had.

Kuo's take on the indictment ... How in hell does Cannon not recuse herself after bending over for Trump, getting smacked down hard for protecting him.

Jay Kuo: "At this point there are some things we already know, some things that are quite likely, and some that will have to await further details. Today we'll take a high level view of the case and address some common questions. Once the indictment is unsealed, which may come before Trump's arraignment on Tuesday of next week, we will know more specifics.

So here's where things look from around 10,000 feet as we descend and get ready to land this plane."

https://statuskuo.substack.com/p/trump-indicted-wh...

Question for you: How can the "sum and substance" of Trump's statements to *his attorneys* be included in the indictment? That's covered by attorney-client privilege...

It doesn't matter that those two guys aren't representing Trump NOW, they were representing him at the time those things were said.

Question for you: How can the "sum and substance" of Trump's statements to *his attorneys* be included in the indictment? That's covered by attorney-client privilege...

Though the attorney isn't identified in the indictment, it's almost certainly Evan Corcoran. He had originally refused to testify to the grand jury, citing privilege. But the Court rejected that broad claim of privilege, and ruled that for certain questions, that privilege didn't apply. The order wasn't released publicly, but it almost certainly was based on the "crime-fraud" exception to the privilege. Where the services of the lawyer are being sought for the purpose of committing a crime, or to enable the client to commit a crime, the communications aren't privileged. Thus:

"Smith's team asked Chief Judge Beryl Howell to reject Corcoran's claims of privilege and force him to testify against his client, Trump, on the basis that the attorney-client communications in question could have furthered criminal activity. Howell's secret order only partially granted that request and ruled that the so-called "crime-fraud exception" be applied to Corcoran's testimony on a specific set of questions, the sources said."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trumps-attorney-evan-...

The statements in the indictment are probably Corcoran's testimony and written notes.

Albaby

However, if you tell your attorney "I'm guilty, but I'm pleading not-guilty", that is still protected? Though I would assume your attorney cannot then put you on the stand knowing that you are going to perjure yourself. Correct?

So it was because the attorney was solicited to aid in the commission of a crime that it isn't protected?

I read some of the indictment. It's pretty damning, and indicates a level of sloppy that I thought wasn't possible in any semi-serious individual. "Hey, buddy, c'mere and look at this super duper secret plans to invade Iran! Isn't this wild? Hahahahaha!"

Honestly. Why can't we ever have serious adults running this country?

Honestly. Why can't we ever have serious adults running this country?

Had to laugh at that! Yeah, seems like Adams was correct: anyone who wants public office is ineligible to hold public office.

If I were to rewrite the Constitution, I might (maybe) consider just putting every natural born citizen's name in a hat, draw a name from the hat, and say "congrats...you're President...here's your lapel pin". I think most people honestly would try to do a good job.

Dope1: Why can't we ever have serious adults running this country?

We did, until Trump. And we do now again with Biden.

A lot of people didn't like how Bush governed and others didn't like how Obama governed but they were adults. Trump was a crook, a con man, and he usually governed and acted like a spoiled twelve-year-old.

We did, until Trump. And we do now again with Biden.

Sorry, Biden is not now and never has been a serious adult.

Sorry, Biden is not now and never has been a serious adult.

I know you don't agree with his policies. Other than that, why do you say this? We've had various levels of incompetence over the last 250 years, but I tend to agree that Trump was the only one that comes to mind that wasn't a serious adult.

Joyce Allen on Twitte re US v Martin: This is persuasive authority that Judge Cannon must step aside if the case falls to her as a permanent assignment. Her court & certainly the 11th won't tolerate the damage it would do to their credibility if she failed to voluntarily recuse.

455 F.3d 1227

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Michael MARTIN, Defendant-Appellee.


IV. REASSIGNMENT 60

Finally, based on our review of the record and the elements that this Court considers in determining whether to reassign a case to a different judge where there is no indication of actual bias, see United States v. Torkington, 874 F.2d 1441, 1447 (11th Cir.1989) (per curiam), we have determined it wiser to remand this case with instructions to reassign it to a different judge. This is the second appeal in Martin's case and the second time we have had to reverse the sentence that the district court gave Martin. On remand, the district court changed its sentence from 60 months' probation to only 7 days' imprisonment and failed to properly take into account the § 3553(a) factors. In light of the two reversals in this case and three other appeals in which we have reversed the same judge for extraordinary downward departures that were without a valid basis in the record,11 we find it likely that "the original judge would have difficulty putting his previous views and findings aside." Id.

https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/77406/united...

However, if you tell your attorney "I'm guilty, but I'm pleading not-guilty", that is still protected? Though I would assume your attorney cannot then put you on the stand knowing that you are going to perjure yourself. Correct?

So it was because the attorney was solicited to aid in the commission of a crime that it isn't protected?

Yes.

The main purpose of the attorney-client privilege is to protect client's ability to get effective legal services from counsel. That's an important public good, in the eyes of the law. It's an important public good even when the legal services are criminal defense. Sure, letting criminal defendants get access to good legal services does increase the risk that some guilty folks will go free. But it increases the fairness, and ultimately the legitimacy, of criminal verdicts if the trial approaches a fair contest.

That's not true, however, if the legal services the client is receiving is "how to commit crimes." There's no benefit - at all - to clients receiving effective assistance from counsel in criming or how to crime better. We don't want defendants to lack access to legal advice in a criminal trial for crimes that have already happened, but we do want them to lack access to legal advice in how to do future crimes.

Trump was a crook, a con man, and he usually governed and acted like a spoiled twelve-year-old.

Twelve-year-old? You're giving him too much credit.

Biggest indictment: He didn't sell the stuff to Saudi and Russia.

I omitted China because the Left doesn't need more salesmen - they have bene on that one for a long time.

Well, a few things.

Will Judge Cannon recuse? Will we get slow walked? Can we finish by election time?

Will Walt Nauta flip and become a witness against Trump? What else?

I know you don't agree with his policies. Other than that, why do you say this? We've had various levels of incompetence over the last 250 years, but I tend to agree that Trump was the only one that comes to mind that wasn't a serious adult.

You can start with Joe Biden's plagiarism scandal from back in the day, to his later ruining of the Supreme Court justice confirmation process (he ran the Judiciary Committee and is the father of modern day Borking of nominees), to his insistence on fabulizing his past (he makes up stories repeatedly that aren't true) to his being wrong on every single foreign policy stance in the last 50 years (Joe Biden argued against taking out Bin Laden, for example).

I mean, paperweights have higher IQ's than this guy. And that was back when he actually had command of his faculties. He doesn't, anymore.

I mean, paperweights have higher IQ's than this guy. And that was back when he actually had command of his faculties. He doesn't, anymore. - Dope

==================

Yet somehow, with only a meager income from being a humble government employee for fifty years,Biden and his family has amassed a fabulous personal wealth. How was that accomplished? Speaking fees? Book royalties? Lottery winnings?

Yet somehow, with only a meager income from being a humble government employee for fifty years,Biden and his family has amassed a fabulous personal wealth. How was that accomplished? Speaking fees? Book royalties? Lottery winnings?

Heh. Sen. Grassley says the Burisma exec mentioned in the FBI form (the one that Wray has been hiding) supposedly has 17 phone recordings.

15 of those calls are between him and Hunter.
The other two are with Hunter, this guy...and Joe Biden.

bighairymike: Yet somehow, with only a meager income from being a humble government employee for fifty years,Biden and his family has amassed a fabulous personal wealth. How was that accomplished? Speaking fees? Book royalties? Lottery winnings?

Um. He's reported his earnings for decades. They're not a secret (like Trump's).

First, he made about $155,000 a year as a senator. Not a fortune but not "meager". And another $20,000 a year teaching. Jill earned about $60,000 a year from the State of Delaware. He got a pay raise to $230,000 a year as VP and Jill got a pay raise to $83,000 a year. The couple earned about $385,000 in Social Security benefits between 2009 and 2019. They also collected about $890,000 from pensions and annuities over the same time frame. But like most politicians of higher office, he made his fortune after leaving office with book deals and speaking engagements.

The Bidens reported an adjusted gross income of roughly $11 million in 2017 and $4.6 million in 2018. The bulk of that number came from a multi-book deal with Flatiron Books valued at $8 million, but the Bidens also earned a sizable income from speaking engagements, which usually ranged from $40,000 to $190,000 per appearance.

The year he left the White House, the former vice president handed over $3.7 million in federal income tax ' or about 5,000 times the $750 that President Donald Trump reportedly paid.

Again, all public information.


https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/politics...

Post New

Berkshire Hathaway FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.