Trump Leaving Office Poll (Part 2)
- Mongrel
- Posts: 21290
- Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:28 pm
- Location: There's winners and there's losers // And I'm south of that line
Re: Trump Leaving Office Poll (Part 2)
So apparently a guy busted into Pelosi's house screaming "Where is Nancy?! Where is Nancy?!", Jan 6th-style, and proceeded to beat the hell out of her husband Paul with a hammer (who will make a full recovery, luckily).
Re: Trump Leaving Office Poll (Part 2)
Mariotti thread on Garland appointing a special counsel:
Threadreader/Nitter
(man I hate this ridiculous format and hope it doesn't outlast Twitter)
Threadreader/Nitter
THREAD: What should we make of the appointment of Jack Smith as Special Counsel overseeing the criminal investigations of Donald Trump?
1/ Today's news that Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed career prosecutor Jack Smith to oversee the investigations of Donald Trump has generated significant skepticism and disagreement.
In my view, this is a prudent (and savvy) move by Garland but it's a little late.
2/ Why appoint a Special Counsel? The answer is obvious:
Trump is the immediate past president and he just announced that he is running again. Biden defeated Trump in 2020 and will likely run against him again in 2024.
3/ Appointment of a Special Counsel puts some distance between the criminal investigation (and potential indictment) of Trump and Biden's political appointees.
Smith is a career prosecutor who has no political reputation or known agenda.
4/ Will Trump and his allies attack Smith? Sure. But it's harder to attack him than it is to attack Smith, and the DOJ is going to follow processes that help ensure the appearance of fairness and impartiality regardless of what the defense team will do.
5/ One thing should be pretty obvious to you -- Garland didn't appoint Smith to wind down these investigations.
If he didn't believe that there was a reasonable possibility Trump would be indicted, he wouldn't have made the appointment.
6/ I wrote earlier this week that an indictment of Trump in the Mar-a-Lago documents case is likely and I stand by that.
Trump's willful possession of classified docs *after* DOJ demanded their return and subpoenaed them served up an easy case to DOJ. politico.com/news/magazine/…
7/ So why not do this earlier? That is my main disagreement with Garland.
Garland suggested that what triggered this decision was Trump's announcement of his candidacy.
But given that Trump was the immediate past president, this decision was warranted before that.
8/ That said, I don't see any significant downside to appointing Smith now.
People who view this as a delay tactic by Garland often do so because they are implicitly crediting online analysis that criminal charges of Trump were always readily provable.
9/ But until the Mar-a-Lago documents matter, based solely on what we know publicly, there were not obvious readily provable charges that could have been brought against Trump (unless you credit the Mueller obstruction counts, which were never discussed or publicly declined).
10/ What this appointment signals to me is that Garland sees a potential indictment of Trump as likely or at least a substantial possibility, and he wants that decision to be made in the most defensible way possible.
So will this slow down the investigation in a meaningful way?
11/ I don't believe it will.
This investigation has been ongoing for months, and there are already FBI agents and career prosecutors working on the case.
Smith can hire those same agents and prosecutors for his team. His role will just be to make the final judgment calls.
12/ So I don't see this materially slowing things down. Maybe by weeks, not months, if at all.
A good analogy is the investigation of Paul Manafort, which was ongoing for months before former Special Counsel Robert Mueller took it over. Mueller indicted him in five months.
13/ While I would have appointed a special counsel much earlier, I don't think there is a reason to believe that Smith's appointment will delay the work of the FBI and DOJ.
14/ What it signals to me is that an indictment of Trump is likely.
I don't say that lightly. During the Mueller investigation, I said that his report would disappoint Trump's critics. I didn't think the "extortion" of Ukraine was prosecutable. I'm skeptical of 1/6 charges.
15/ But the Mar-a-Lago documents case is more like the drug cases I prosecuted as a junior prosecutor than the complex white collar cases I've handed since then. A conviction doesn't turn as much on intent or state of mind.
If you have the docs (or drugs), you're guilty.
16/ So despite skepticism, I believe this announcement will turn out to be extraordinarily significant.
The end result will likely be a Trump indictment. A trial before the election is likely, but Smith's appointment makes this more likely to outlast the Biden presidency. /end
(man I hate this ridiculous format and hope it doesn't outlast Twitter)
Re: Trump Leaving Office Poll (Part 2)
Oath Keepers boss guilty of seditious conspiracy in 1/6 case
I'm seeing other sources say that all 5 defendants were found guilty of obstructing an official proceeding and aiding and abetting, but that only Rhodes and Meggs were convicted of seditious conspiracy.
I'm seeing other sources say that all 5 defendants were found guilty of obstructing an official proceeding and aiding and abetting, but that only Rhodes and Meggs were convicted of seditious conspiracy.
Re: Trump Leaving Office Poll (Part 2)
Trump Mar-a-Lago special master struck down by appeals court
It's worth reading the opinion; the Eleventh Circuit is not amused at Cannon's antics. It starts
and the first section ends with
and it goes on like that for another 20 pages or so.
This isn't going to significantly affect the investigation going forward; the court already granted the DoJ access to the important stuff months ago. But it's important as a matter of precedent, because it smacks down Cannon's attempt to invent special legal privileges for former presidents.
Trump can appeal to the Supreme Court, but given that he already tried to appeal an order by this same court in this same case decided on these same grounds and SCOTUS didn't take it then, I don't think they're very likely to take it now.
It's worth reading the opinion; the Eleventh Circuit is not amused at Cannon's antics. It starts
This appeal requires us to consider whether the district court had jurisdiction to block the United States from using lawfully seized records in a criminal investigation. The answer is no.
and the first section ends with
In considering these arguments, we are faced with a choice: apply our usual test; drastically expand the availability of equitable
jurisdiction for every subject of a search warrant; or carve out an unprecedented exception in our law for former presidents. We choose the first option. So the case must be dismissed.
and it goes on like that for another 20 pages or so.
This isn't going to significantly affect the investigation going forward; the court already granted the DoJ access to the important stuff months ago. But it's important as a matter of precedent, because it smacks down Cannon's attempt to invent special legal privileges for former presidents.
Trump can appeal to the Supreme Court, but given that he already tried to appeal an order by this same court in this same case decided on these same grounds and SCOTUS didn't take it then, I don't think they're very likely to take it now.
Re: Trump Leaving Office Poll (Part 2)
Trump Organization found guilty on all counts of criminal tax fraud
Mariotti:
Donald Trump and his family were not charged in this case, but the former president was mentioned repeatedly during the trial by prosecutors about his connection to the benefits doled out to certain executives, including company-funded apartments, car leases and personal expenses.
The Trump Organization could face a maximum of $1.61 million in fines when sentenced in mid-January. The company is not at risk of being dismantled because there is no mechanism under New York law that would dissolve the company. However, a felony conviction could impact its ability to do business or obtain loans or contracts.
20221115 trump web card image updated november 15
The guilty verdict comes as Trump is under scrutiny by federal and state prosecutors for his handling of classified documents, the effort to overturn the 2020 election results, and the accuracy of the Trump Organization’s business records and financial statements. He is also facing a $250 million civil lawsuit from the New York attorney general alleging he and his adult children were involved in a decade long fraud. The attorney general is seeking to permanently bar them from serving as an officer or director of a company in New York state, among other penalties.
Mariotti:
This is a significant verdict—the Trump Organization is found guilty of serious felony fraud charges.
This will give even more leverage to New York Attorney General Tish James in her civil suit, which seeks extraordinary remedies that would cripple the company.
Re: Trump Leaving Office Poll (Part 2)
He's been having a HELLUVA last few months.
I'm gonna guess the civil suit isn't going to go his way either.
I'm gonna guess the civil suit isn't going to go his way either.
- Mongrel
- Posts: 21290
- Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:28 pm
- Location: There's winners and there's losers // And I'm south of that line
Re: Trump Leaving Office Poll (Part 2)
Family of Capitol police officer Brian Sicknick, who died on 1/6, come to receive his congressional gold medal.
Re: Trump Leaving Office Poll (Part 2)
Thad wrote:Trump Organization found guilty on all counts of criminal tax fraudDonald Trump and his family were not charged in this case, but the former president was mentioned repeatedly during the trial by prosecutors about his connection to the benefits doled out to certain executives, including company-funded apartments, car leases and personal expenses.
The Trump Organization could face a maximum of $1.61 million in fines when sentenced in mid-January. The company is not at risk of being dismantled because there is no mechanism under New York law that would dissolve the company. However, a felony conviction could impact its ability to do business or obtain loans or contracts.
20221115 trump web card image updated november 15
The guilty verdict comes as Trump is under scrutiny by federal and state prosecutors for his handling of classified documents, the effort to overturn the 2020 election results, and the accuracy of the Trump Organization’s business records and financial statements. He is also facing a $250 million civil lawsuit from the New York attorney general alleging he and his adult children were involved in a decade long fraud. The attorney general is seeking to permanently bar them from serving as an officer or director of a company in New York state, among other penalties.
Mariotti:This is a significant verdict—the Trump Organization is found guilty of serious felony fraud charges.
This will give even more leverage to New York Attorney General Tish James in her civil suit, which seeks extraordinary remedies that would cripple the company.
I'm bracing myself for the "Ah! Well. Nevertheless,"
- Mongrel
- Posts: 21290
- Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:28 pm
- Location: There's winners and there's losers // And I'm south of that line
Re: Trump Leaving Office Poll (Part 2)
It's an actual felony criminal conviction. Also the defence was "Well yes, it happened, but we totally didn't know about it.", which seems like... not great grounds for the inevitable appeal.
But it's not Trump personally, so I guess there's that angle.
But it's not Trump personally, so I guess there's that angle.
- nosimpleway
- Posts: 4518
- Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 7:31 pm
Re: Trump Leaving Office Poll (Part 2)
Best to hope for is that the findings in this trial factor into the presumably-upcoming, come-on-any-day-now trials for Trump himself. Nevertheless.
Re: Trump Leaving Office Poll (Part 2)
Büge wrote:"Ah! Well. Nevertheless,"
Twitter can't die fast enough.
Re: Trump Leaving Office Poll (Part 2)
I do think he's losing pull with people outside his cult of personality. The more establishment types. Which I think accounted for a lot of his protection. The more stuff like this that happens, the more that erodes, leading to more consequences. I think you can tell he's realizing it by how he's posting on Truth Social.
Of course, if he gets the Repub nom or something, those establishment types will just fall in line behind him.
Of course, if he gets the Repub nom or something, those establishment types will just fall in line behind him.
- Mongrel
- Posts: 21290
- Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:28 pm
- Location: There's winners and there's losers // And I'm south of that line
Re: Trump Leaving Office Poll (Part 2)
On the plus side, Warnock won the runoff.
Re: Trump Leaving Office Poll (Part 2)
Mongrel wrote:Family of Capitol police officer Brian Sicknick, who died on 1/6, come to receive his congressional gold medal.
And everyone refusing to shake McConnell's hand is kind of incredible.
: Mention something from KPCC or Rachel Maddow
: Go on about Homeworld for X posts
: Go on about Homeworld for X posts
Re: Trump Leaving Office Poll (Part 2)
I don't want to get my hopes up, but at the same time...
Re: Trump Leaving Office Poll (Part 2)
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3780865-jan-6-committee-unveils-criminal-referrals-against-trump/
Jan. 6 committee unveils criminal referrals against Trump
Honestly didn't think it'd get to this part.
Jan. 6 committee unveils criminal referrals against Trump
Honestly didn't think it'd get to this part.
Re: Trump Leaving Office Poll (Part 2)
The stolen documents case is still the likeliest source of an indictment; it has no intent requirement and is easy to prove.
Of the committee referrals, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding is the strongest. The others are heavier lifts, but that doesn't necessarily mean the special counsel won't pursue them.
Of the committee referrals, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding is the strongest. The others are heavier lifts, but that doesn't necessarily mean the special counsel won't pursue them.
Re: Trump Leaving Office Poll (Part 2)
Trump v Clinton -- that's the one where he sued Hillary Clinton for rigging the 2016 election -- just ended with Trump and his lawyers getting benchslapped with $937,989.39 in sanctions. The order begins:
The judge continued, "I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
This case should never have been brought. Its inadequacy as a legal claim was evident from the start. No reasonable lawyer would have filed it. Intended for a political purpose, none of the counts of the amended complaint stated a cognizable legal claim.
The judge continued, "I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
Re: Trump Leaving Office Poll (Part 2)
Is there a tally on how much he now owes/how much he's lost due to legal action in the last, like, 2 years? Maybe confirmation bias but it feels like a lot
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 42 guests