Trump indicted

[pasayten]

"Planted by scoundrels": Trump melts down on Truth Social after DOJ reveals evidence against him
Story by Tatyana Tandanpolie • 4h ago - Salon

Former President Donald Trump erupted on social media early Thursday after special counsel Jack Smith began turning over evidence Wednesday from his investigation into Trump's handling of classified documents and alleged attempts to obstruct government retrieval efforts.

A Wednesday court filing signals that investigators obtained several recordings from "interviews" of Trump "conducted by non-government entities" — not just the previously reported audio of Trump during an interview for former chief of staff Mark Meadows' memoir.

The first batch of evidence produced in the case's discovery period, which is comprised of unclassified materials, also includes transcripts of witness testimony before grand juries in Florida and Washington, D.C., subpoenaed and seized materials, memos describing other witness interviews given in the investigation through mid-May, and copies of surveillance footage obtained in the inquiry, according to CNN.

This evidence "includes the grand jury testimony of witnesses who will testify for the government at the trial of this case," the special counsel's office wrote.

"Gonna be a bad Christmas for Trump lawyers": Court filing reveals DOJ has multiple Trump recordings
The former president, who pleaded not guilty to all 37 criminal charges in the indictment last Tuesday, took to Truth Social Thursday morning in a series of posts dubbing the federal probe and his other ongoing investigations "witch hunts."

"The Radical Left Investigations of me now, Federal, State, and City, are a SCAM and continuation, tightly coordinated with each jurisdiction and run by the now fully exposed as being corrupt and shameless, DOJ & FBI," he wrote in the first post. "The Boxes Hoax, where I come under the NON CRIMINAL Presidential Records Act and have done NOTHING WRONG, has exposed Biden, who is not protected by the PRA because he was not President. He has literally thousands of Boxes, numerous in Chinatown, & containing really bad 'STUFF!'"

Trump has repeatedly argued that the President Records Act, which defines the scope of presidential records and states they belong to the government, exonerates him from prosecution for hoarding classified materials.

Legal experts, however, clarified for Salon last week that Trump is not facing charges for violating the PRA but rather the Espionage Act, which instead pertains to national defense records from agencies like the CIA that the indictment accuses him of willfully retaining.

Experts have also noted the stark difference between Trump's alleged attempts to obstruct retrieval efforts that were outlined in the indictment and President Joe Biden's cooperation with the government when his aides found and returned classified documents obtained during his vice presidency in his old Delaware office earlier this year.

"Congress will hopefully now look at the ever continuing Witch Hunts and ELECTION INTERFERENCE against me on perfectly legal Boxes, where I have no doubt that information is being secretly 'planted' by the scoundrels in charge, the Perfect Phone Calls (Atlanta), the illegal DOJ/Pomerantz/Manhattan D.A. Hoax, where virtually EVERYONE agrees THERE IS NO CASE, and the NYSAG SCAM, where I have proven beyond a doubt that there is no case, but have a hostile Judge who should not be on this case!" Trump continued.

"CONGRESS, PLEASE INVESTIGATE THE POLITICAL WITCH HUNTS AGAINST ME CURRENTLY BEING BROUGHT BY THE CORRUPT DOJ AND FBI, WHO ARE TOTALLY OUT OF CONTROL," the Republican frontrunner concluded. "THIS CONTINUING SAGA IS RETRIBUTION AGAINST ME FOR WINNING AND, EVEN MORE IMPORTANTLY TO THEM, ELECTION INTERFERENCE REGARDING THE 2024 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. IT WILL BE THERE UPDATED FORM OF RIGGING OUR MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION. LOOK AT THE POLLS - THEY CAN'T BEAT ME (MAGA!) AT THE BALLOT BOX, THE ONLY WAY THEY CAN WIN IS TO CHEAT. STOP THEM NOW!"

Trump's most recent set of criminal charges follows his first criminal indictment earlier this year on charges relating to an alleged hush-money payment made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels prior to the 2016 election.

The former president also faces another special counsel investigation into his attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election and his alleged incitement of the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection as well as another probe into alleged efforts to subvert the election results in Georgia.

He maintains he committed no wrongdoing in each case.

Read more

[Rideback]

I'll type real slow.
Trump relies on innuendo to make charges against his enemies. He does not use facts.

Court cases against Trump do not rely on innuendo and their success against him has been based solely on the facts of each case.

[Fun CH]

Ok, so go with the jury finding for Jean Carroll...that is a distinction from the innuendo Trump uses to go after his perceived enemies. You'll notice that the evidence and findings against Trump are of a different stripe than the innuendo that Trump used by saying that Obama wasn't a US born citizen, that HRC was a pedophile...

And because Trump babbles on social media and in rallies, constantly saying self incriminating things, a 2nd judge has ruled along similar lines that he and his team and co-defendant are gagged from exploiting information during discovery and trial.

https://politicalwire.com/2023/06/19/ju ... dium=email

In one sentence, what point are you trying to make?

[Rideback]

Judge Cannon has set trial date of Aug 14. That's a placeholder, likely the trial won't take place for months after.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/6 ... not-really

[Rideback]

Bret Baier, Fox anchor, interviewed Trump today. It's devastating. The first half ran today, the 2nd half will run Tuesday. Clearly, Trump is a master spinner but Baier didn't bite.

https://deadline.com/2023/06/donald-tru ... 235420347/

[Rideback]

Ok, so go with the jury finding for Jean Carroll...that is a distinction from the innuendo Trump uses to go after his perceived enemies. You'll notice that the evidence and findings against Trump are of a different stripe than the innuendo that Trump used by saying that Obama wasn't a US born citizen, that HRC was a pedophile...

And because Trump babbles on social media and in rallies, constantly saying self incriminating things, a 2nd judge has ruled along similar lines that he and his team and co-defendant are gagged from exploiting information during discovery and trial.

https://politicalwire.com/2023/06/19/ju ... dium=email

[Fun CH]

And Chris, the difference between Trump's NYT full page ad, Trump's innuendo charges against Obama's legitimacy as a president and his numerous charges against HRC and anyone else that appeared on his radar is that they were innuendo that were not anywhere close to the charges that Jack Smith has brought in the indictments, nor the indictments in Manhattan nor the guilty verdict in the Jean Carroll case.

You're stating the obvious again.

The Jean Carrol case was not a criminal Trial, so a guilty verdict against Trump did not occurr. That's an important distinction that you and Jim aren't able to grasp. Criminal cases have a higher Beyond Reasonable Doubt standard to render a verdict. Civil courts don't have that same standard of proof and are not bound by the same strick rules of evidence as a criminal case.

Carrol said she was raped by Trump. The jury did not find that to be the case and she was awarded damages for sexual abuse and defamation.

If you already know and understand that, you're spreading biased misinformation. If you are ignorant of how courts work I hope the following information helps.

"Possible verdicts in criminal cases are guilty or not guilty. In a civil suit, the jury will find for the plaintiff or the defendant. If the jury finds for the plaintiff, it will also usually set out the amount the defendant should pay the plaintiff for damages, often after a separate hearing concerning damages. The jury will also make a decision on any counterclaims that may be part of the case."

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/publ ... k/verdict/

Just trying to be factual and invoke the principle of fair play and good faith debate. This in no way should be interpreted that I support Trump.

[Rideback]

Trump's AG Bill Barr interview on CBS 6/18 laying out Trump's case.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/william-ba ... E-T5_8QY84

[Rideback]

Lawfare team reads through the indictment charge by charge and explains the meaning.
https://shows.acast.com/60518a52f69aa81 ... dium=email

[Rideback]

One of several wildcards in sentencing Trump is that, like this piece, the assumptions are that these guidelines are for someone with no criminal record. Whether this case is tried in '24 or '25, by the time a jury comes to a verdict it is more than likely that Trump will indeed already be a convicted felon. He will have a record. Whether it's another of Smith's cases, Manhattan or Georgia, along the way the chances are better than not that he will qualify as having a record.

The question now that's being debated is whether Trump could pardon himself should he be re elected.

[just-jim]

.
An analysis of just how much jail time might be awaiting Guilty fatso donnie. By a former Federal prosecutor:

https://www.justsecurity.org/86901/how- ... uidelines/
.

[Rideback]

Questions answered about Judge Cannon's role in the documents trial

https://statuskuo.substack.com/p/loose- ... dium=email

And Chris, the difference between Trump's NYT full page ad, Trump's innuendo charges against Obama's legitimacy as a president and his numerous charges against HRC and anyone else that appeared on his radar is that they were innuendo that were not anywhere close to the charges that Jack Smith has brought in the indictments, nor the indictments in Manhattan nor the guilty verdict in the Jean Carroll case.

The indictments use actual documents, witness testimony under oath (UNDER OATH), recordings and pictures. There is simply no comparison. Trump continues to this day to fabricate stories. This morning he's charging that the FBI planted docs. Meanwhile Evan (the Trump appointed 'plucker') Corcoran's journal and testimony demonstrate that Trump lied not just to the FBI, DoJ and American public but that he lied numerous times to his own lawyers.

Fact checking Trump statements: https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/13/politics ... index.html

[Fun CH]

I think there is often a misunderstanding of "innocent until proven guilty". That is a subject for criminal procedure. People are still free to look at the evidence presented and draw their own conclusions.

Most of the evidence here is in plain sight and pretty easy to understand. And it is difficult for me to imagine anyone taking an honest look at that evidence and concluding anything but that Donald Trump cannot be trusted with critical national defense information.

When you get right down to it, this is shocking and unprecedented. We're talking about a former President being charged with espionage. That is simply unheard of in any country.

You're Stating the obvious here.

Half the country didn't Trust Trump in 2016. He to was free to ignor the innocent until proven guilty tenant of of our law, which is also an American value. That didn't stop him from taking out a full page News paper ad that perhaps helped convict 5 innocent Black men for the rape and murder of a white women.

The internet has certainly changed things so that now anyone has the access to that full page ad, without access to law enforcement investigative evidence. So like Trump's guilty verdict on those innocent black men everyone is going off half cocked.

People even hold public internet trials for those who have not committed crimes such as Jack the owner of private land along the South Creek trail where he was publically called a liar here (latter removed).

David isn't it better that we all stick to, or at least get back to American values, before this whole thing gets more cluster f...ed then it already is?

Is 37 Criminal Counts What It Takes for the GOP to Abandon Trump?

https://www.thenation.com/article/polit ... publicans/

At least Nikki Haley, Chris Christie and a few other presidential candidates are speaking for Law and Order and against Trump's Deeds. Trump still has his base which will never leave him (however I don't believe he can Garner enough votes from Independent voters which is critical to win the presidential election.

[pasayten]

Is 37 Criminal Counts What It Takes for the GOP to Abandon Trump?

https://www.thenation.com/article/polit ... publicans/

[mister_coffee]

I think there is often a misunderstanding of "innocent until proven guilty". That is a subject for criminal procedure. People are still free to look at the evidence presented and draw their own conclusions.

Most of the evidence here is in plain sight and pretty easy to understand. And it is difficult for me to imagine anyone taking an honest look at that evidence and concluding anything but that Donald Trump cannot be trusted with critical national defense information.

When you get right down to it, this is shocking and unprecedented. We're talking about a former President being charged with espionage. That is simply unheard of in any country.

[Rideback]

#1 the post is not by Marcy, but you'd know that if you read the post.
#2 Bill Barr noted that the case is overwhelmingly strong based on the evidence presented in the filing and that were it true that only 1/2 of it were proven, 'Trump is toast'.

The comparison in the post I gave is to point out that the Nuremberg trials were heavily problematic because the victors of WW2 were trying the losers in a public courtroom. In order to assure that public opinion from the victor's or even from the Nazis that they were being victimized the SCOTUS Justice chose to make his case solely on the basis of evidence and witness testimony from the people who were being charged. Not to let into the courtroom the avalanche of public outcry against the Nazis meant that the defendants were tried entirely on the facts in evidence according to the law.

That is why Jack Smith's choice to try the Trump case based exclusively on evidence, testimony and facts provided through the Trump side will remove politics from the courtroom.

Clip of Bill Barr's take: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/barr-on-fox

[Fun CH]

So, I take it from your response that you didn't read the indictment. Figures.

That's just you assumption based on zero evidence. Figures.

An interesting observation that Smith, who has been working out of the Hague for years now, is following the premise of Justice Jackson (SCOTUS justice who took time off from SCOTUS to prosecute in the Nuremberg trials) which was to use only evidence and testimony from the Nazis themselves. A reading of the Trump indictments demonstrates that Smith's team will only be using evidence directly obtained from Trump and his camp, there isn't room for political commentary from the Democrats or Liberals.

https://www.emptywheel.net/2023/06/10/j ... t-jackson/

I see you are letting emptyspeil do your thinking for you again. Comparing Nuremberg trials to Trump's prosecution, come on man, she's just stirring the pot yet again. So yeah, plenty of "room for political commentary from the Democrats or liberals". She's doing just that, or don't you recognize that as a fact?

Evidence is always gathered from the defendant, cohorts,alleged crime scene and Witnesses, however the legal opinions are all DOJ.

The GOP are making some good points about this having the appearance of a political prosecution and weaponization of the DOJ. Same thing Democrats accused Trump of doing with AG Bill Barr.

GOP sided Attorney Dershowitz is saying that the charges are bogus and uses some, IMO, lame reasoning to explain why. He does however acknowledge that showing what Trump knew to be classified documents to people who do not have security clearance, is problematic for Trump.

But guess what, a jury this will decide. Will you or other's on the left except that verdict if Trump is found not guilty? After all many of you still think Trump is guilty of colluding with Russia even though no charges were brought against Trump in a 32 million investigation.

[Rideback]

So, I take it from your response that you didn't read the indictment. Figures.

An interesting observation that Smith, who has been working out of the Hague for years now, is following the premise of Justice Jackson (SCOTUS justice who took time off from SCOTUS to prosecute in the Nuremberg trials) which was to use only evidence and testimony from the Nazis themselves. A reading of the Trump indictments demonstrates that Smith's team will only be using evidence directly obtained from Trump and his camp, there isn't room for political commentary from the Democrats or Liberals.

https://www.emptywheel.net/2023/06/10/j ... t-jackson/

[Fun CH]

So Chris, have you read the filing?

in an earlier post on another thread, I said that he would be indicted only if he did something that we did not know about such as selling secrets to Russia.

He did show classified documents to people that do not have clearance to see those documents. It's never a good idea to be caught with a Smoking Gun.

However in our system of justice he is, as Jack Smith noted, innocent until proven guilty, something I've been pointing out for a while. Why do you think he made that point?

Did any of the articles you posted report from 'sources familiar with the investigation' that Trump showed a classified map and documents to people who had no business seeing them? Just curious.

At any rate, this is big money for both Trump and news media on both sides.

I of course hope he is nominated to be the GOP presidential candidate. How about you?

[Rideback]

So Chris, have you read the filing?

[Fun CH]

So glad Jack Smith put this in a statement. Perhaps the internet trial will wait for the real thing? Nah probably not.

"It's very important for me to note that the defendants in this case must be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law."

https://www.npr.org/2023/06/09/11814126 ... case-trump

[pasayten]

Trump blasts federal indictment as 'ridiculous' and 'baseless' in speech to Republicans in Georgia
LA Times... Story by BILL BARROW, JEFF AMY, JILL COLVIN and MEG KINNARD • Yesterday 4:21 PM

Former President Trump blasted his historic federal indictment as “ridiculous” and “baseless" Saturday during his first public appearance since the charges were unsealed, painting the 37 felony counts as an attack on his supporters as he tried to turn dire legal peril to political advantage.

Speaking at a Republican state convention in Georgia, Trump cast his indictment by the Department of Justice as an attempt to damage his chances of returning to the White House as he campaigns for a second term.

“They’ve launched one witch hunt after another to try and stop our movement, to thwart the will of the American people,” Trump said, later telling the crowd that, "In the end, they’re not coming after me. They’re coming after you.”

The strategy is a well-worn one for Trump, who remains the front-runner for the 2024 GOP nomination despite his growing legal woes, which include criminal charges filed against him in March in New York. Again and again, in the face of investigation, Trump has tried to delegitimize law enforcement officials and portray himself — and his supporters — as victims, even when he faces serious charges.

Trump also vowed Saturday to remain in the race, even if he is convicted in the case.

“I’ll never leave,” he told Politico in an interview aboard his plane after his speech in Georgia. He further predicted that he wouldn’t be convicted and sidestepped questions about whether he would pardon himself if he wins a second term.

“I don’t think I’ll ever have to,” Trump said. “I didn’t do anything wrong.”

The indictment unsealed Friday charges Trump with willfully defying Justice Department demands to return classified documents, enlisting aides in his efforts to hide the records and even telling his lawyers that he wanted to defy a subpoena for the materials stored at his residence.

The indictment includes allegations that he stored documents in a ballroom and bathroom at his Mar-a-Lago resort, among other places.

Trump is due to make his first federal court appearance Tuesday in Miami. He was charged alongside valet Walt Nauta, a personal aide whom prosecutors say moved boxes from a storage room to Trump’s residence for the former president to review and later lied to investigators about the movement. Nauta traveled with Trump to Georgia, appearing by his side at a Waffle House stop where Trump signed autographs, posed for photos and told supporters, “We did absolutely nothing wrong.”

Earlier Saturday, Trump was given a hero's welcome at the party convention in Georgia, where he drew loud applause as he slammed the investigation as “a political hit job” and accused his political enemies of launching “one hoax and witch hunt after another” to prevent his reelection.

He also used his remarks to rail against President Biden and his 2016 Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, accusing them of mishandling classified information and insisting he was treated unfairly because he is a Republican. But Trump overlooked a critical difference: Only he has been accused of intentionally trying to impede investigators by not returning the classified documents.

In the Clinton probe, for instance, FBI investigators concluded that although she was extremely careless in her handling of classified emails on a private server, there was no evidence that she intended to break the law. And though the Biden investigation is ongoing, no evidence has emerged to suggest that he intentionally held on to the records or even knew that they were there, with his representatives turning over records after they were discovered and voluntarily consenting to FBI searches.

Trump also lingered on Georgia’s role in his 2020 defeat, repeating his lies that he had won the state and defending his efforts to overturn Biden’s victory, which is now the subject of an investigation by Fulton County Dist. Atty. Fani Willis. She has suggested that any indictments would probably come in August.

At the heart of the investigation is a recorded phone conversation in which Trump urges Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to “find 11,780 votes” — just enough to overtake Biden and overturn Trump’s narrow loss in the state.

Despite the latest criminal charges, attendees cheered him on in Georgia and eagerly awaited his arrival in North Carolina, where he was to speak at the party's convention Saturday evening.

The indictment arrives as Trump continues to dominate the primary race. Other candidates have largely attacked the Justice Department — rather than Trump — for the investigation. But the indictment’s breadth of allegations and scope could make it harder for Republicans to rail against these charges compared with an earlier New York criminal case that many legal analysts had derided as weak.

Among the various investigations Trump has faced, the documents case has long been considered the most perilous threat and the one most ripe for prosecution. But Trump’s continued popularity among Republican voters is evident in how gingerly his primary rivals have treated the federal indictment.

Mike Pence, whose appearance in North Carolina marked the first shared venue with his former boss since the ex-vice president announced his own campaign this past week, condemned the “politicization” of the Justice Department and urged Atty. Gen. Merrick Garland "to stop hiding behind the special counsel and stand before the American people” to explain the basis for the federal investigation into Trump.

In an interview with the Associated Press after his speech, Pence said he had read the indictment but repeatedly declined to share his personal reaction to its contents — including the photographs of boxes with classified information stacked in a Mar-a-Lago bathroom and on a ballroom stage — or to criticize Trump.

“The very nature of a grand jury is that there is no defense presented,” Pence said. “That’s why I said today I’m going to urge patience, encourage people to be prayerful for the former president, but also for all those in authority and for the country going forward.”

At the North Carolina GOP gathering Friday night, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, Trump's leading GOP rival, didn't mention Trump by name but compared his situation to that of Clinton.

“Is there a different standard for a Democratic secretary of State versus a former Republican president?” DeSantis asked. “I think there needs to be one standard of justice in this country. ... At the end of the day, we will once and for all end the weaponization of government under my administration.”

Among the declared Republican contenders, only Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson has explicitly called for Trump to end his candidacy. Hutchinson told reporters in Georgia that the Republican Party “should not lose its soul” in defending Trump and said the evidence so far suggested that the former president treated national secrets “like entertainment tools.”

This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.

[Rideback]

The guy who helped write the rules for declassification weighs in on how Trump's claims won't fly
https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/10/opinions ... index.html

[Rideback]

Pretty much the consensus of the punditry class analyzing where Trump stands is that the filing is so meticulously laid out that the only defense Trump has is delay. Judge Cannon could come into play on that but SC Jack Smith said yesterday it is in the interests of justice and the rights of the defendant to have a speedy trial. Regardless, most think it would be problematic for a jury to have a verdict by election day '24, but that doesn't mean that a trial won't be in full swing before that.

As the article notes, now that the Indictments are published it's demonstrable that not only did Trump's actions meet the standards of the Espionage Act but exceeded them. 31 charges under the Espionage Act is hard to fathom but it is the reality.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... ree-scenes

[Rideback]

This is the actual filing. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 53.3.0.pdf