Post New

According to an article in last night's Washington Post, Tom Fitton, who has a bachelor's degree in English from George Washington University, was instrumental in convincing former president Trump to retain classified documents after leaving office. Fitton, who has no legal experience or education, is president of Judicial Watch -- which Media Bias Fact Check rates as "Questionable based on extreme right-wing bias, promotion of conspiracy theories, and an abysmal fact-check record".

Trump time and again rejected the advice from lawyers and advisers who urged him to cooperate and instead took the advice of Tom Fitton, the head of the conservative group Judicial Watch, and a range of others who told him he could legally keep the documents and should fight the Justice Department, advisers said. Trump would often cite Fitton to others, and Fitton told some of Trump's lawyers that Trump could keep the documents, even as they disagreed, the advisers said.

Well, sure, who among us hasn't sought legal advice from an English major? Fitton has single-handedly walked Trump into an indictment, and there's nothing he can do to save him now.

If Trump ends up in federal prison thanks to non-lawyer Tom Fitton's advice, it'll be the only worthwhile work Judicial Watch has ever done.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2...

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/judicial-watch/

Well, sure, who among us hasn't sought legal advice from an English major?

English major, ex-junkie pillow salesman... Patriots!

Meanwhile, here's a fairly concise listing of Trump's lies from his post-arraignment speech from Canada's perspective. CTV is listed as relatively unbiased.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/fact-check-trump-make...

Well, sure, who among us hasn't sought legal advice from an English major? Fitton has single-handedly walked Trump into an indictment, and there's nothing he can do to save him now.

Pretty amusing. Though I wouldn't give Fitton quite that much credit. By all accounts, this is Trump's m.o. when it comes to advisors generally - he goes from person to person until he gets the advice he wants.

I've run into developer clients like that from time to time over the years - they beauty contest various law firms until they find one that tells them that what they want to do is, in fact, doable. So they'll come in and say they want to get approval for X units, and if we tell them that they'll realistically only get Y units, they just move on to a different firm until they find someone who will tell them that they can get X. They almost invariably end up with Y anyway - just after a lot of brain damage and fighting.

If it hadn't been Fitton, it would have been someone else. Trump would have run through advisor after advisor until he found one that would give him the answer he wanted, rather than the right answer.

If Fitton knew of the documents, and encouraged their retention, is he an accessory?

If Fitton knew of the documents, and encouraged their retention, is he an accessory?

Probably not. Typically to be an accessory you have to have done something to help in the commission of the crime or have done something unlawful to help them avoid getting caught (accessory after the fact). Typically, you have to do something.

Here's the federal version:

"Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3

Merely knowing about a crime usually isn't enough to be an accessory. A lot of the time, you don't have an affirmative duty to report crimes. Note - while that's the general rule, there are a non-trivial number of situations where you have an affirmative duty to report a crime (often when you have some duty of care or responsibility for a victim), and there might even be criminal sanctions if you don't. But that's usually not an application of the "accessory" crime, but rather an independent violation of a statutory obligation.

Giving your opinion about whether something is or is not legal isn't likely to be a crime either, unless you cross the admittedly vague line between discussing the issues and actually helping them in committing the crime. Doesn't sound like that's what Fitton actually did.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

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