The (many) indictments of Donald Trump

#15,002
#15,002
Jonathan Turley
@JonathanTurley
·
2h
Judge McAfee dismissal of the six counts presents a difficult question for the prosecution. If they try to secure a superseding indictment to correct the earlier mistakes, it will make it difficult to try the case before the election...

...The defense is allowed discovery and time to prepare for the new alleged crimes. That will take time off the clock. The court has indicated that they can still rely on the underlying conduct to make out the general racketeering charge. However, that theory was alreadly thin soup and it just got a bit thinner...

...Part of the value of the multiplicity of counts was to convey a pattern criminality as a foundation for the more serious racketeering charges. This does not disable the case, but it adds yet another set back for the prosecution as it awaits the disqualification decision.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LibertyVol and W.TN.Orange Blood
#15,003
#15,003
dalton_vol said:
Being indicted in NY as a gop is as easy as getting arrested for praying by an abortion clinic. any halfway, logical thinking man should know this is a banana republic court. Its stuff that used to happen in the ussr, cuba, china.
Click to expand...
Yeah, and they exported it to us since they are so evolved and we're so COMMIFIED!!
 
#15,004
#15,004
This is just legal incompetence from Fani and her team.....

Be careful what you wish for Trump supporters. If she is booted, someone competent might try this case...
 
#15,012
#15,012
BOOM!


Simon Ateba
@simonateba

BREAKING: Judge Aileen Cannon indicates that she might dismiss the classified documents case against Donald Trump due to selective prosecution. This comes after questioning Jack Smith's team on why no other President or Vice President in the United States has been charged under the Espionage Act for taking or keeping classified materials, a situation that involves 32 counts against Trump.

NOTE: The hearing in a Florida court is occurring just days after former Special Counsel Robert Hur confirmed that Joe Biden broke the law by willfully retaining classified documents and sharing them with his ghostwriter for a book from which he made at least $8 million. The judge appeared to question why there was one standard for Trump and another for all Presidents and Vice Presidents before him.

NOTE: While it's too early to conclude, based on the questioning, the judge does not seem convinced by many of the arguments presented by Jack Smith ahead of the 2024 presidential election.






Liberal heads exploding on social media attacking Cannon who has been the only fair, competent and impartial judge in all of Trump's cases.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol, Orangeburst, whodeycin85 and 1 other person
#15,013
#15,013
Julie Kelly 🇺🇸
@julie_kelly2

NEW: From FLA courthouse in Trump's classified documents case with a prediction.

Robert Hur report and testimony is the biggest elephant in the room. The term "arbitrary enforcement" used frequently by both the defense and Judge Aileen Cannon.

Cannon hammered the fact no former president or vice president has been charged under Espionage Act for taking and keeping classified records including national defense information--which represents 32 counts against Trump in Jack Smith's indictment.

Prediction: Cannon won't dismiss the case based on the motions debated today--vagueness of Espionage Act and protection under the Presidential Records Act.

But it's very likely she will dismiss the case based on selective prosecution, a motion still pending before her.

Without saying so directly, what Judge Cannon suggested is that any former president or vice president who took unauthorized records and failed to return them to the proper authority committed a crime the day he left office.Also important to note that Judge Cannon, who is pretty measured in comparison to most judges, made these points in a rather heated fashion. She is very aware of the double standard at play in the non-prosecution of Joe Biden.
 
#15,014
#15,014
During a hearing to consider various motions Trump filed to dismiss the case, Judge Aileen Cannon noted no former president had similarly faced criminal charges over the handling of classified material, according to NBC News. Trump’s attorneys brought up special counsel Robert Hur’s report finding evidence President Joe Biden willfully kept classified documents, but declining to charge him, according to CNN.

​
“Even with other former presidents, there was never a situation remotely similar to this one,” prosecutor Jay Bratt told Cannon, according to CNN. (RELATED: ‘What Does Somebody Have To Do?’: Matt Gaetz Grills Robert Hur For Not Charging Biden And Ghostwriter)

dailycaller.com

Judge Questions Why Trump Was The Only President Charged Over Handling Of Classified Material

The judge overseeing Trump's case in Florida questioned why he was the only president who has been charged over his handling of classified material.
dailycaller.com dailycaller.com
 
#15,019
#15,019
whodeycin85 said:
why do you believe that?
Click to expand...

U.S. v Armstrong plus differences in cases is going to make it hard for Trump to prevail.

I speculate the judge may give him extra time for discovery but unless there is a smoking gun in the paper trail, Trump won't meet this burden. But Trump's team is clearly utilizing stall tactics so this plays into that....
 
#15,020
#15,020
More from the FL Courtroom:

Cannon pressed both defense and Special Counsel to explain when the "crime" of willful retention of national defense information begins--she noted the date in Jack Smith's indictment as to when Trump first violated the Espionage Act.

January 20, 2021, the day he left office

Jay Bratt, representing special counsel office, confirmed the "crime" began that day because as a former president, he was entitled to retain the documents.

Cannon again asked for historical precedent as to when a former president or vice president faced charges for similar conduct. Bratt of course said there is none.

She added "vice president" on numerous occasions for a reason--Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Mike Pence all skated on criminal charges. Trump is the only one who has not.

Cannon: "Arbitrary enforcement...is featuring in this case."

Cannon also addressed the "foreseeability" as to Trump's awareness he was committing a crime by keeping classified/national defense information.

Also of interest: Jay Bratt claiming there is no official process for a president to obtain or keep a security clearance. His argument is Trump's clearance automatically expired at the end of this term--which contradicts how former government officials maintained clearances long after their service ended.

Trump's elimination of John Brennan's clearance was raised.

But there is a problem. The Dept. of Energy, learning of Smith's indictment against Trump in the summer of 2023, retroactively revoked Trump's "Q" security clearance.

Bratt says the government has emails and a draft memo to revoke Trump's clearance.

Cannon's counterargument is--but if there is no formal process for authorizing or removing a president's security clearance--why did DOE need to memorialize it post-indictment.

Bratt didn't really have an answer.
 
Last edited:
#15,021
#15,021
BigOrangeMojo said:
Not sure selective prosecution is a viable defense in a federal case....
Click to expand...
BigOrangeMojo said:
It's morally wrong but it's not unconstitutional at all.

That's why the "everybody else was speeding defense doesn't work" when you are brought in on reckless driving charges...
Click to expand...
It can be a constitutional issue, depending on why a defendant was selected for prosecution. But I read somewhere today that that defense hasn’t been granted at the District, Circuit, or Supreme Court level in over 100 years. The farther back you go, the less likely I think it is that you’d find a case that was granted.

I’d be really surprised if he gets any meaningful relief. If Cannon grants on that basis it probably wouldn’t result in her removal by itself but it would definitely be on that side of the scale, along with the earlier civil suit.

I don’t think she wants to dismiss this case herself. If she did, and if she was halfway competent, she’d just rule for the government on everything, ram the case through to trial, and then dismiss on the motion for judgment of acquittal before the jury came back with a verdict. The government can’t appeal that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolTull and BigOrangeMojo
#15,022
#15,022
RockyTop85 said:
It can be a constitutional issue, depending on why a defendant was selected for prosecution. But I read somewhere today that that defense hasn’t been granted at the District, Circuit, or Supreme Court level in over 100 years. The farther back you go, the less likely I think it is that you’d find a case that was granted.

I’d be really surprised if he gets any meaningful relief. If Cannon grants on that basis it probably wouldn’t result in her removal by itself but it would definitely be on that side of the scale, along with the earlier civil suit.

I don’t think she wants to dismiss this case herself. If she did, and if she was halfway competent, she’d just rule for the government on everything, ram the case through to trial, and then dismiss on the motion for judgment of acquittal before the jury came back with a verdict. The government can’t appeal that.
Click to expand...
I'll obviously defer to your expertise and I agree that if you can prove persecution, then you have a Constitutional issue. But I don't see the Feds leaving any type of discoverable paper trail. This isn't Fani Willis and her incompetence at play here. That's why that defense hasn't worked in over 100 years...
 
#15,024
#15,024
BigOrangeMojo said:
I'll obviously defer to your expertise and I agree that if you can prove persecution, then you have a Constitutional issue. But I don't see the Feds leaving any type of discoverable paper trail. This isn't Fani Willis and her incompetence at play here. That's why that defense hasn't worked in over 100 years...
Click to expand...
Yeah the Armstrong case acknowledged an equal protection limit on prosecutorial discretion. Political affiliation isn’t a protected class, but you could envision a similar limitation based on the 1st Amendment. But nobody has ever met the burden of persuasion and there have been stronger cases than this one, which honestly seems more about political messaging than a credible legal argument. It’s in Trump’s political interest to convince his followers that he/they are the victim.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolTull and BigOrangeMojo
#15,025
#15,025
RockyTop85 said:
It can be a constitutional issue, depending on why a defendant was selected for prosecution. But I read somewhere today that that defense hasn’t been granted at the District, Circuit, or Supreme Court level in over 100 years. The farther back you go, the less likely I think it is that you’d find a case that was granted.

I’d be really surprised if he gets any meaningful relief. If Cannon grants on that basis it probably wouldn’t result in her removal by itself but it would definitely be on that side of the scale, along with the earlier civil suit.

I don’t think she wants to dismiss this case herself. If she did, and if she was halfway competent, she’d just rule for the government on everything, ram the case through to trial, and then dismiss on the motion for judgment of acquittal before the jury came back with a verdict. The government can’t appeal that.
Click to expand...
Are you saying you foresee a scenario where Cannon could face removal?

I’d be really surprised if he gets any meaningful relief. If Cannon grants on that basis it probably wouldn’t result in her removal by itself but it would definitely be on that side of the scale
Click to expand...
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top