President Trump

[Gerry M.]

Jim, if you are arguing an equivalence between LBJ and Trump.......I'm stunned to say the least.

I would never argue the economic benefit the office brings between speaking fees, board memberships, book deals or whatever but this is corruption at a level unseen previously in our history.

Politics is a dirty business, but with the exception of Vietnam, LBJ left a positive legacy particularly on civil rights. Tell me ONE good legacy of Trump. Not one, period.

I've read the indictment and politics aside the legal case looks compelling. To me, if he wasn't prosecuted and given a pass then we would be a bananna republic and the last 250 years of sacrifice would be for not. I'm sad right now. I take no joy in seeing what's unfolding. Unlike Watergate, I don't see Republican "come to Jesus" realization that the Country needs a statesman to step forward and give the necessary slap to the face of leadership to awaken them to the consequence of their quest for power.

Unfortunately, I fear the futures of my grandchildren will be greatly impacted negatively due to the third of our populace who are complete imbeciles.

[JimHow]

Boy, Gerry, I don't usually agree with the WSJ editorial page, but I think my sentiments, at least at this point, align with theirs. This is arcane, ancient legislation that is being employed by one president's prosecutor against a political rival in an election year. This is the way they do things in Chile, Venezuela, Peru, etc., etc.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-tru ... opin_pos_1

[Chateau Vin]

Wow Jim. If this ancient legislation is not good enough for President, why is it good enough for ordinary citizenry who go through same charges everyday? While at it, scrap these ancient laws that deal with lying under penalty, obstruction of justice statutes, yada, yada...

Regarding bringing charges in election year, I don't agree with this notion at all. Again, let's go with the facts. Unlike in other countries, the election cycle in US is short and is 4 years. Add mid terms, the elections are always around the corner if I have to go by that argument. And seems like DOJ has to hurry up and bring charges within weeks or months to avoid that. So do you want the DOJ do a sloppy job and do that, without going through Special Prosecutor, etc. that does take time? Damned if you use Special Prosecutor in the name of handsoff DOJ approach, or damned if you don't use Special Prosecutor to speed up things thereby getting labeled even more partisan...And not to mention the stone wall tactics of this guy to employ all the delay he can possibly employ. What happens with that tactic? The elections are always around the corner no matter what, for the guy to play victim card and blame everyone else but himself...The sad part is, people fall for his victimhood, parroting the notion of witchhunt and bemoaning the loss of democracy, and what not...

[JimHow]

"Wow," CV, I guess I'm shocked that you seem to be surprised that half the population, major newspapers and media, disagree with you.

"Wow!"

I disagree with you. I guess that's just the way it goes.

I'll bet you a 2014 Calon Segur that Donald John Trump never spends a minute in prison on these (or any other) trumped up charges. If the charges are as slam dunk as you say, this should be a no brainer for you, no? Are we on? A friendly bet?

[Chateau Vin]

Boy, Gerry, I don't usually agree with the WSJ editorial page, but I think my sentiments, at least at this point, align with theirs. This is arcane, ancient legislation that is being employed by one president's prosecutor against a political rival in an election year. This is the way they do things in Chile, Venezuela, Peru, etc., etc.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-tru ... opin_pos_1

That WSJ Opinion article is as stupid as it can get, starting from the first line itself...

"First time federal govt is indicting a former president who is also running against a sitting president..."

So what? It shouldn't be done? By that logic, a former President can file election papers every election cycle to avoid any indictment in perpetuity. And for a second, wouldn't trump do that if we employ that bone headed logic of WSJ? Geez, gimme a break...

If you have a heartburn for this sort of thing, then put in place a system of so not to complain about sitting president's DOJ not indicting a rival. It seems WSJ is advocating not to prosecute at all at the expense of anyone breaking any law so long as the person is a former or potential office holder. Wow, great logic, WSJ...

[Chateau Vin]

"Wow," CV, I guess I'm shocked that you seem to be surprised that half the population, major newspapers and media, disagree with you.

"Wow!"

I disagree with you. I guess that's just the way it goes.

I'll bet you a 2014 Calon Segur that Donald John Trump never spends a minute in prison on these (or any other) trumped up charges. If the charges are as slam dunk as you say, this should be a no brainer for you, no? Are we on? A friendly bet?

I am yet to see any challenge to my logical reasoning or presented facts. All I am hearing is he shouldn't be charged because fifty percent people believe otherwise, bad for democracy, and throwing stuff in conversation like banana republic, political persecution, etc.

Jim, I am not surprised at all that half the population disagrees with me and others. That disagreement is mainly because the issue is political in nature, nothing else. But as a lawyer you know that political nature should not come into play either when you indict someone or when the jury renders their judgement. Castaway the political lens, and those numbers will be different.

Everybody knows why the current republicans including the republican leadership have become Trump toadies. It's just self preservation, right? If the republican leadership is preaching what Trump is preaching, and if Faux news is parroting what Trump is saying and that half the population never gets facts or news from other sources, which side are they gonna believe when the facts are already thrown out the window? So it seems like everything will be looked at through this political lens.

Regarding Calon Segur bet, I am not onto it because I also believe Trump will not go to jail. But I will be happy to bring a 2009 Lynch Bages whenever we meet... But the question becomes-- Should the govt bring charges on someone because the chance of that person going to jail is zero (and possibly even after conviction) or should they bring charges based on the available facts and evidence that could help in conviction?

[DavidG]

Here’s the indictment. Should be a free link.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 ... =url-share

[Racer Chris]

Maybe by the time the third indictment is handed down, people who haven't followed the details of his criminal behavior will accept that this isn't just a political witch hunt.

[Claudius2]

Guys
This gives me absolutely no pleasure to write or even think about.
I am shaking my head in disbelief.
You are likely to go into the next election with:

A). The existing President who is clearly being staged managed and frankly is little more than a puppet. This is not personal, I don't have any feelings one way or the other, though he is also tainted as is his son. C'mon guys, is that the best you can do?
B). A blowhard that thinks small and talks big. I ask Trump supporters exactly what he achieved and they scratch their heads. Oh well. I'm not mentioning the indictment as frankly I could not care less.

The above is making the USA look stupid. Seriously, the media and general public opinion here is that the USA is becoming (or already is) a failed state with useless, braindead leaders. No wonder Putin, Xi Jinping and the other autocratic assholes in this world no longer care what the USA thinks.

I am just shaking my head in disbelief that the USA cannot come up with better candidates for President.

No I am not being cynical or smart.
I am saying that the USA is portrayed as a bad joke in Asia and just about everywhere else. There is no leadership, total division, crazy politics and cultural malaise.

regards
Mark

[tim]

Mark,

Biden is being stage-managed? Little more than a puppet? That is about as far fetched as the moon landing being fake. Biden is the epitome of establishment politics. He operates in the same way that he did in the Senate and as VP. You may dislike him, and you can say that his age is interfering with his judgement (still yet to be demonstrated), but saying he is a puppet is really not based in reality.

There are lots of better candidates for President. But the system doesn't produce the best candidates, it produces the candidates that win. Otherwise, Hillary would have been President 14 years ago, and we'd be talking about Obama's second term.

[JimHow]

My neighbors across the street, who are like the nicest people I know, just put up a big Trump sign, presumably in support of Orange Head and against the government.

CV, if the best you can say is the WSJ is “stupid,” I don’t think that’s a real intellectual response.

Going to cuddle up with the indictment tonight with some popcorn. If it’s anything like what came out if New York, I don’t think I’m going to be impressed.

It’s interesting, I had a beer yesterday with a bunch of my criminal defense lawyer friends, we’re all pretty liberal and anti Trump, all 7 of us were troubled by this indictment. I wonder if it’s because we see government overreach and arbitrariness by prosecutors every day of the week.

[Chateau Vin]

My neighbors across the street, who are like the nicest people I know, just put up a big Trump sign, presumably in support of Orange Head and against the government.

CV, if the best you can say is the WSJ is “stupid,” I don’t think that’s a real intellectual response.

Going to cuddle up with the indictment tonight with some popcorn. If it’s anything like what came out if New York, I don’t think I’m going to be impressed.

It’s interesting, I had a beer yesterday with a bunch of my criminal defense lawyer friends, we’re all pretty liberal and anti Trump, all 7 of us were troubled by this indictment. I wonder if it’s because we see government overreach and arbitrariness by prosecutors every day of the week.

Jim,

Hmmmm...I doubt if you have even read my whole response or just browsed through it. An intellectual response has presentation of facts and elaboration to it (which you seem to have ignored my elaboration following it). I just not merely say stupid, but elaborated below why that line of WSJ argument is stupid. I also explained why WSJ reasoning in arguing that former high office holders should not be charged is fatally flawed.

You might concur with lawyer buddies, but while you rightly point out and moan about half the country having heartburn with his indictment, what about the other half who think he is a criminal and should have worn the orange jumpsuit long time ago (which btw you mentioned it many number of times)?

So I don’t agree with you when you say he shouldn’t be indicted because it is politically inconvenient. I say he should be indicted if he has done wrong. Straight and simple.

I don’t know why people bend to political whims when following the rule of the law. Aren’t you the one who grandly talked about Profile in Courage? Where is the Edmund Ross in you?

P.S. I gave my take on who and why someone should be charged irrespective of politics or associations or political repercussions, but should be charged purely based on the actions of that person and the facts.

You say otherwise, but not once you elaborated on why that shouldn’t be case... If politics is the answer then we are already lost in the wilderness, already hallowing Ben Franklin’s words “A Republic if you can keep it”.

[Chateau Vin]

And BTW, neighbors putting Trump sign doesn’t mean a squat if you want everyone to follow the rule of law, especially in a democracy. They might be nice, but that doesn’t mean the person they support is law abiding and if he commits a crime, shouldn’t be charged.

Nicest german people also put the signs in support of Hitler.

I am not saying what DOJ has done in charging Trump is right/wrong. I am just saying DOJ should charge anyone at anytime if they have evidence that that person has committed crime irrespective of politics or stature. And what I am saying is unlike I hear from others who say that "it is bad for the country because of politics involved, it is bad because half of the country support him, etc.”

Although not exactly parallel, when it comes to reasoning that Trump enjoys among his followers, I might remind that majority of Germans also supported Hitler...

[JimHow]

You're entitled to your opinion, CV, I don't think it is "stupid."
Often times I find the left is every bit as intolerant as the right.
I just reread the WSJ op-Ed, I don't think it's "stupid" at all.
It pretty much sums up the way I feel about this prosecution.
I guess that means you think I'm "stupid."
Well, I can't do much about that. I'm just a dumb hick country lawyer.

[JimHow]

Also, I don't think my neighbors are Nazi sympathizers.

[tim]

Also, I don't think my neighbors are Nazi sympathizers.

They may not be Nazi sympathizers, but they sure do seem indoctrinated by the propaganda that is put out by the right wing media. Which is a big part of the problem. Facts don't matter anymore. All that matters is outrage based on your bubble of misinformation.

I read both indictments. The NY one was weak imo. The federal one was not.

As far as the WSJ, I think this comparison says it all:

[tim]

Trump didn't just innocently mishandle classified information. He deliberately concealed it and took steps through an intermediary to hide it from authorities, then purposely shared it with people who were not authorized to see it. Then he tried to cover it up.

If it were purely negligence, I would agree that it would be overreach. But this is far beyond negligence. The indictment spells out intent. Intent to conceal. Intent to break the law.

To not prosecute would put the US down with the most corrupt of nations.

[Chateau Vin]

If you are just trying to stir the pot, that's fine. I am ok with that. But after all these conversations, I am still waiting to hear why it is bad to indict someone who is a political figure who happens to have a following among people. Should that be the criterion to indict/not to indict or should alleged wrong doing and facts/evidence be the criteria?

You're entitled to your opinion, CV, I don't think it is "stupid."

Ok. That's fine. I believe everyone is entitled to their opinion just as you said.

Often times I find the left is every bit as intolerant as the right.

You are preaching to the quire...The only thing it seems these days is "what is right vs. what is left", instead of "what is right vs. what is wrong"

I just reread the WSJ op-Ed, I don't think it's "stupid" at all.
It pretty much sums up the way I feel about this prosecution.
I guess that means you think I'm "stupid."

Well, what can I say? I did not expect you to stretch the truth far beyond than what I said. You might have called a movie "boring", a movie liked by your friends. I am pretty sure you haven't called them "boring" or implied that they are "boring".

And many of our BWE friends call parkerized/oaky wines as dumb and crucify the winemaker for that, and I am pretty sure they know someone who would agree with those wines. But I am sure the BWErs don't imply that their friends are dumb...

Well, I can't do much about that. I'm just a dumb hick country lawyer.

Well, whatever you think of yourself, you are revered by many, and undoubtedly I am one of them. I do share your unique stories, your clients' stories and I also share through your front row seat lens of our justice system with my friends. In fact, my Boston friends incentivize me to visit them, telling me that I can also visit my "Lynch How Bages" friend in Maine. You maybe a country lawyer, but that one who cares about the small guy, small town, countryside and the country.

I am off to Hawaii tomorrow for a vacation. I hope I get good weather, as this is the first Hawaii visit for my boys...

[Chateau Vin]

Also, I don't think my neighbors are Nazi sympathizers.

They may not be Nazi sympathizers, but they sure do seem indoctrinated by the propaganda that is put out by the right wing media. Which is a big part of the problem. Facts don't matter anymore. All that matters is outrage based on your bubble of misinformation.

I read both indictments. The NY one was weak imo. The federal one was not.

As far as the WSJ, I think this comparison says it all:

FyQnLkaXoAEMliu.jpg

Interesting tidbit from Page 21 of the indictment...


While meeting with TrumpAttorney1 and TrumpAttorney2 on May23, TRUMP,
in sum and substance, told the following story, as memorialized by Trump Attorney 1:

[Attorney] , he was great, he did a great job . You know what? He
said, he said that it that it was him. That he was the one who
deleted all of her emails , the 30,000 emails, because they basically
dealt with her scheduling and her going to the gym and her having
beauty appointments. And he was great. And he, so she didn't get
in any trouble because he said that he was the one who deleted them.

TRUMP related the story more than once that day

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/ ... 3/full.pdf

[Hm$(still)]

I thought this was a very good analysis from a law professor blog which skews mostly conservative & very libertarian:

https://reason.com/volokh/2023/06/10/ag ... ing-trump/

Hm$

[DavidG]

Jim, I don’t see where you have made a substantive argument for why Trump shouldn’t have been indicted. “It’s bad for democracy” is pretty weak sauce compared to the specific and cogent arguments laid out by CV, Tim, and others. Giving criminal behavior by a President a pass just because of his office or popularity is a hell of a lot worse for democracy.

Are you making a slippery slope argument? If we don’t bother to charge an ex-President/candidate in the face of this much incriminating evidence, how much lower can we go? From our current status as a banana republic to shithole country? Are you worried that when the Rs are in power they will tie up D candidates with (sorry can’t resist) Trumped up charges and vice versa? Indicting and trying Trump isn’t going to make that any more likely than it already is.

I’m also curious if you think it’s worth the time and effort of a trial to find out if Trump actually did the things he was charged with. If not, can you give a more cogent reason than “it will piss off half the population, including my very nice neighbors who put up a Trump sign?” They’re already pissed off about the “stolen” election and a bunch of them marched on the Capitol to try to reverse it.

After reading the indictment, do you think the (alleged) treatment of classified documents is worthy of a trial? Does the answer depend on who the defendant is? Would it be different if a Trump ex-aide had made off with the documents and had them unsecured in his house where others might have access to them? And refused to give them back?

The bad for democracy argument may have some merit, but I’d like to hear why you think indicting Trump is worse for democracy than giving him a pass. Some of his antics, like having his lawyers lie to the courts and behaving as if the law doesn’t apply to him, are particularly bad for democracy precisely because of his position. He got us here, are we to ignore it? Are we governed by the rule of law or the rule of man?

[Hm$(still)]

The following is a very good summary (not mine) of some of the most damning facts alleged in the indictment:

________

“The grand jury issued a subpoena on May 11, 2022, demanding all documents in Trump’s possession with classification markings. Twelve days later, two of his attorneys met to discuss the matter. Trump told them: “Wouldn’t it be better if we just told them we don’t have anything here?” and suggested that his lawyers should lie on his behalf. “Trump Attorney 1,” who is undoubtedly Evan Corcoran, said he would return on June 2 to go over the boxes of documents, identify the papers sought by the grand jury, and ensure compliance with the subpoena.

Between that meeting and Corcoran’s return, Trump allegedly directed co-defendant Nauta to smuggle approximately 64 boxes of classified documents from the Mar-a-Lago storage room to Trump’s personal residence. (Some were stored in a shower.) The FBI interviewed Nauta during this period, asking him if he was aware of any boxes transferred to Trump’s private residence. Nauta—who had been busy moving boxes into Trump’s private residence—said no.

Shortly before Corcoran returned on June 2, Trump allegedly told Nauta to return 30 boxes to the storage room. It appears that the former president had removed all documents of interest and then returned enough boxes to trick Corcoran into thinking that he had access to the entire set of files. Corcoran still found 38 documents with classified markings; Trump may have overlooked these documents, or intentionally left them for Corcoran to find so he would not grow suspicious. Either way, Trump allegedly implied to Corcoran that he should “pluck” them out before turning over the files to the FBI. (He did not.)

Then, on Trump’s behalf, Corcoran and another attorney certified that they had searched all of the “boxes that were moved from the White House to Florida” and provided all classified documents to federal investigators, as required by law. Following this handoff, the indictment states, Nauta surreptitiously loaded several boxes onto the plane that Trump and his family would fly “north for the summer.” Trump and Nauta must have thought they had gotten away with their alleged scheme scot-free.

They hadn’t. Their alleged box switcheroo was captured on surveillance footage obtained by prosecutors and shown to the grand jury. It formed one basis of the warrant that authorized a search of Mar-a-Lago in August, when FBI agents found many more documents that Trump had allegedly concealed from his lawyers and law enforcement.

——————

If and when Nauta flips, it will be fascinating to see what Trump does.

Hm$

[jal]

I am a little more on the fence about this than you guys. I have no doubt there was obstruction of justice, and as Bill Barr said in the WSJ article: “This would have gone nowhere had the President just returned the documents. But he jerked them around for a year and a half.”

But I also don't think there is anything sinister in the whole affair, like selling secrets or conspiring against the Republic or the current administration. I can't judge intent, I just think he's an asshole who believes he's above the law and above other citizens and will not give in to anyone's demands because his ego just won't let him.

I just wish he had been indicted for his Jan 6 incitement or for trying to overturn the election results in Georgia instead. These cases would not have had any appearance of impropriety, not that I believe there is any, and would have carried a lot more weight with Republican voters.

Anyway, the indictment is in now. Let's hope for the best and that he's found guilty (probably easy) and spend some time behind bars (not likely)

[JimHow]

Timmy, the Wall Street Journal article is not only of the opinion that he should not be charged because it is bad for democracy. I generally don’t like prosecutors because of their arbitrariness and abuse of power. Government prosecutorial power must be used with utmost restraint. The left keeps waiting for something to stick. The dossier. The Zelenskyy phone call. The NY rogue prosecutor. Even the liberals at CNN couldn’t believe how weak that NY indictment is. I was against the first impeachment and for the second, addressing presidential conduct in the political realm. Like Jacques (and the WSJ) said, he’s just being his usual dick self. In a country where presidents from both the left and right have fought secret wars and authorized assassinations, the mainstream media is having an orgasm over this dink withholding some boxes in his bathroom and bragging about stuff that doesn’t really seem to have endangered national security. Noam Chomsky once went back to FDR and explained how every president since should have been declared a war criminal. Classified documents are apparently out there all over the place, including Joe’s garage. They found some right here in Lewiston in the Ed Muskie archives here at Bates College. I gave a presentation to 200 defense lawyers at a conference on Friday about presenting a jury trial in a defense case, and I used my Walmart shooting murder case as a case study. I was amazed at myself at all of the examples in that case where the government exaggerated and fudged to justify its case in a frightening attempt to convict an innocent man. Comey was going to be the left’s hero. Then Mueller. What a zero that guy was. The left is confident it’s got its man now in this Smith guy, who apparently gets off on shaking down potential witnesses, just like the tough guy prosecutors in the movies. I’ve seen jokers like this in federal and state prosecutions. The unchecked power of US attorneys. You guys didn’t believe me back in 2016 when I told you there was something going on in middle America. The right is ignorant and the left is arrogant. Sometimes I’m not sure which is worse. One of Orange Head’s biggest problems is that he seems to have one nitwit lawyer after another. He really does need his Roy Cohn, or, even better, that internationally renowned lawyer and philanthropist from Maine.

I'm trained not to just believe "hard ass" prosecutors merely because they just say something is so. I've been representing this suspended lawyer for over a year now, he was charged with 6 counts of felony sexual assaults. Lost his law license and his livelihood, because the Maine State Police, a rogue agency, said he assaulted a woman repeatedly while she was living at his house. The charges were completely bogus and the state dismissed the indictment in its entirety last week. Where does he go to get his reputation back? I've seen too many "Jack Smiths" over the past 37 years, they're generally not good for democracy.

Ah well, first sunny day in a while, gotta go mow the lawn. I'll wave to my Trump neighbors (actually, like almost every person on this street supports Trump, and every one of them are super nice neighbors), I have no doubt they'll wave back in good old middle America neighborly friendship.

[JimHow]

The red barn across the street.

[DavidG]

withholding some boxes in his bathroom and bragging about stuff that doesn’t really seem to have endangered national security.

Interesting post. Above is the part that seems relevant to the classified documents case.

I get your mistrust of prosecutors. It’s well-founded, and I have the utmost respect for your willingness and ability to keep them in check. But I think your mistrust may be excessively coloring your view.

If I’m reading you correctly, your position is that we should stop because Trump’s a known dick and, in your opinion, meant and caused no harm with his handling of the classified material? Has that ever worked for you in the courtroom? Should it?

Lord knows a retired ophthalmologist shouldn’t be arguing criminal law with an experienced and accomplished criminal defense attorney, but what the heck… Unless you’re really, really good at picking juries, they’re members of the defendant’s cult, or you luck out with an incredibly sympathetic judge, I have a hard time seeing that argument gaining much traction. “Your honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my client is generally a dick and we all know he frequently drives drunk. He didn’t hurt anybody, the cops pulled him over before he hit anyone or anything. And he wasn’t trying to hurt anyone. He was just being his usual dickish self, so this whole prosecution is ill-conceived. You shouldn’t even consider suspending his license, and you certainly shouldn’t throw him in prison.”

Or to earlier comments: would you argue pre-trial that prosecutors should drop a case because your client is polarizing, with half the town loving him and half hating him, and a prosecution might drive the half who love him to civil unrest or violence?

[JimHow]

All of your points are very fair, David, as are everyone else's here who are in the pro-prosecution mindset.

Hey there is nobody here who would like to see Orange Head squealing like a pig in federal prison more than me, after all he has put this country through. But that sentiment is not in my mind the best for the health of the country.

Everyone who is convinced Orange is toast was equally convinced when the Mueller report came out. Everyone said then, just read the Mueller report. I remember back then, I asked someone, okay, tell me what's the WORST thing that was in the Mueller report. And I can't remember what the answer was, but I remember replying, really? THAT is what you are going to turn the country upside down over?

Same thing here. Really? Orange is bragging about some documents in a bathroom over Iran? Really? THIS is what a sitting administration is going to prosecute a political opponent over in an election year?

So I think it is at least as much my political hat, David, as my legal hat, that says... No. don't do it. Don't turn the country upside down over THIS.

The world knows what a criminal this guy is. In the last election he was soundly defeated in large part because people know that. If they are stupid enough to vote him back in this time well that's too bad for us. I personally don't think it's going to happen, unless something like a third party or Joe's health intervenes. This Orange Haired phenomenon caused a lot of damage to this great country. Hopefully he will die sometime soon and disappear into history like other despots.

As for my distrust of prosecutors... You're darn tooting. And I REALLY distrust prosecutors who pose for the cameras, with their tough guy arms crossed, etc., etc. My instincts tell me this guy is a creep. I guess we shall see how this plays out.

To me, in the end, it really comes down to what Jacques/WSJ say: He's just being a dink. I thought Dershowitz's op-Ed today was pretty on point as well... It looks like he has committed crimes, but is it ENOUGH? I say no.

For me, I'm in Marcus's camp. I say no. We don't prosecute political opponents in this country. This isn't Myanmar, and Pakistan, and Scotland...

[Hm$(still)]

I am sure of four things:

1st, The Orange Julius would be better served by having Jim representing him than any of the motley crew that he has assembled in the past (most of whom have now resigned or been fired);

2nd, underestimating the appeal of the “Dicks will be Dickish” argument is a short walk to disappointment. You’d be amazed at the stupidity people buy into;

3rd, there is a non-zero chance that the prosecution has more damning facts that are not in the indictment (e.g. classified documents that it did not want to make public, etc.); and

4th, the DOJ knows that when you come for the king, you better kill him. They would not have brought this indictment if they did not think there was a very high probability of a conviction and they will be pushing for a speedy trial well before the election.

Hm$

[JimHow]

Ha ha, HM$, if I were representing Orange, I'd bring my monster assistant Jesse with me down to south Florida and we would turn those government pig dog hacks upside down in about six weeks.

Orlando Bobby, can't you get the message to those pretty boy lawyers down there?

I was just watching Christie on the CNN town hall, and Anderson asked him literally, in like the first question, what I just asked: What's the most serious evidence against Orange Head?

And I was sitting here answering emails, and I said, oh good, surely the big mean former governor of New Jersey, the former big mean prosecutor from the big tough state of New Jersey, where all those big tough mobsters hang out, surely HE, the man who is going to GO AFTER Donald Trump in this primary, surely HE is going to tell me what's the most serious evidence in this indictment. I mean, dude, he's running for PRESIDENT against the guy....

Anderson Cooper: "Governor, what the best evidence against Donald Trump?"

Christie, former mean NJ governor and attorney general, giving his best Ralph Camden impersonation: "Abadaabadaabadabada...."

Folks... My friends. There's nothing here, folks. I saw all I needed to know in big mean Chris Christie's answer. This is a political witch hunt.

[jal]

How does he get Secret Service protection if he's in prison? Just curious

[JimHow]

What a disgrace today.
Arresting an American president over this nonsense.
In the middle of an election year.
What a disgraceful, shameful day in the history of this country. Shame on our government.

[stefan]

You are right, Jim. The world has gone downhill since Divine Right Monarchy went out of fashion. Nixon tried to set the USA straight when he proclaimed that "when a president does it, it is not illegal", but his own party let him down. tRump has the backing of most of his party, and might be able to accomplish what Nixon failed to do. We just have vote for The Donald while attacking parts of the government that try to challenge tRump's lawbreaking.

Go, tRump, Go tRump, Go tRump!

[Comte Flaneur]

I think Michael Bloomberg is spot on here:

2023-06-13 09:00:22.354 GMT


By Michael R Bloomberg
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Former President Donald Trump
appearing in federal court in Miami today, facing 37 criminal
counts related to his handling of classified documents, is a sad
but necessary moment of truth and accountability. Even for his
staunchest opponents, it should be nothing to celebrate.
The facts of the case, as detailed in a 49-page indictment,
are deeply disturbing — and extraordinarily dangerous. On
leaving office, Trump took “scores of boxes” with him that he
was not authorized to possess. They contained highly classified
files on (among other things) nuclear programs, weapons
capabilities, US military vulnerabilities and plans for
retaliation after a foreign attack. Despite the extreme
sensitivity of the files, Trump stashed them haphazardly around
his golf club, “including in a ballroom, a bathroom and shower,
an office space, his bedroom, and a storage room.” On at least
two occasions he showed them off to others. Commenting on a plan
of attack, he said, “This is secret information. Look, look at
this.”
As the government tried to intervene, Trump lied and
dissembled at every step. When officials from the National
Archives and Records Administration demanded the documents, he
ignored them for months before turning over a small fraction.
When a federal grand jury subpoenaed the files, Trump did
everything he could to obstruct the probe, including asking his
lawyer to destroy documents and lie to the Federal Bureau of
Investigation; directing an aide to hide evidence; withholding
multiple sensitive files; and causing his lawyer to falsely
certify that all the required material had been produced. When
the FBI finally raided his club last August, they uncovered 102
classified documents still on the premises.
Unlawfully handling such files is a serious crime. The
Justice Department has in recent years prosecuted it
aggressively, bringing charges against retired General David
Petraeus, former Central Intelligence Agency officer Jerry Chun
Shing Lee and former defense contractor Harold Martin, among
many others. Earlier this month, former Air Force intelligence
officer Robert Birchum was sentenced to three years in prison
for conduct remarkably similar to Trump’s. In other words: This
is not a case of overzealous prosecution or partisan hardball,
as Trump’s allies are claiming.
Nor does the former president deserve the benefit of the
doubt. Trump has done business with fraudsters, mobsters and
gangsters, and he has legions of former customers who claim they
were cheated. By one analysis, he and his firms have been
involved in more than 4,000 court cases over the years. His
company was recently convicted of 17 criminal charges, while he
himself was charged with 34 counts in a hush-money probe and
found liable of sexual abuse and defamation in a separate suit.
From the start of his term in office, Trump engaged in
misconduct so reckless that it tested the limits of presidential
immunity. He is still under investigation for attempting to
unlawfully retain power, incite a riot at the Capitol and
interfere with the 2020 election. No one could argue that he
naively blundered into a prosecutorial trap.
For all that, the question of whether Trump’s indictment is
justified is separate from whether it is good for the country.
He is, after all, a former president and the front-runner for
his party’s nomination in 2024. Republicans are already vowing
to retaliate against President Joe Biden and his family once he
leaves office, thus threatening to engage in the very behavior
they claim to be deploring. Such politically driven prosecutions
— something the US has largely managed to avoid — could weaken
American democracy and turn US politics, already grim, uglier
still.
Yet the former president’s alleged conduct was so egregious
— and the evidence so damning — that in reality prosecutors had
little choice but to bring these charges. Civility must at some
point yield to the rule of law, the pursuit of justice and the
protection of the nation.

[Racer Chris]

The election isnt until November 2024 Jim.
smh

[JimS]

Timmy, the Wall Street Journal article is not only of the opinion that he should not be charged because it is bad for democracy. I generally don’t like prosecutors because of their arbitrariness and abuse of power. Government prosecutorial power must be used with utmost restraint. The left keeps waiting for something to stick. The dossier. The Zelenskyy phone call. The NY rogue prosecutor. Even the liberals at CNN couldn’t believe how weak that NY indictment is. I was against the first impeachment and for the second, addressing presidential conduct in the political realm. Like Jacques (and the WSJ) said, he’s just being his usual dick self. In a country where presidents from both the left and right have fought secret wars and authorized assassinations, the mainstream media is having an orgasm over this dink withholding some boxes in his bathroom and bragging about stuff that doesn’t really seem to have endangered national security. Noam Chomsky once went back to FDR and explained how every president since should have been declared a war criminal. Classified documents are apparently out there all over the place, including Joe’s garage. They found some right here in Lewiston in the Ed Muskie archives here at Bates College. I gave a presentation to 200 defense lawyers at a conference on Friday about presenting a jury trial in a defense case, and I used my Walmart shooting murder case as a case study. I was amazed at myself at all of the examples in that case where the government exaggerated and fudged to justify its case in a frightening attempt to convict an innocent man. Comey was going to be the left’s hero. Then Mueller. What a zero that guy was. The left is confident it’s got its man now in this Smith guy, who apparently gets off on shaking down potential witnesses, just like the tough guy prosecutors in the movies. I’ve seen jokers like this in federal and state prosecutions. The unchecked power of US attorneys. You guys didn’t believe me back in 2016 when I told you there was something going on in middle America. The right is ignorant and the left is arrogant. Sometimes I’m not sure which is worse. One of Orange Head’s biggest problems is that he seems to have one nitwit lawyer after another. He really does need his Roy Cohn, or, even better, that internationally renowned lawyer and philanthropist from Maine.

I'm trained not to just believe "hard ass" prosecutors merely because they just say something is so. I've been representing this suspended lawyer for over a year now, he was charged with 6 counts of felony sexual assaults. Lost his law license and his livelihood, because the Maine State Police, a rogue agency, said he assaulted a woman repeatedly while she was living at his house. The charges were completely bogus and the state dismissed the indictment in its entirety last week. Where does he go to get his reputation back? I've seen too many "Jack Smiths" over the past 37 years, they're generally not good for democracy.

Ah well, first sunny day in a while, gotta go mow the lawn. I'll wave to my Trump neighbors (actually, like almost every person on this street supports Trump, and every one of them are super nice neighbors), I have no doubt they'll wave back in good old middle America neighborly friendship.

A fantastic post, Jim. I don't post much on the topics of politics these days, but I have enjoyed watching this thread evolve with interest - hoping this thread can remain a last bastion of good natured conversation and debate without bringing out the worst of humanity and us I chime in because you mention Chomsky - one of my favorite books was "Manufacturing Consent", and I would encourage anyone to read it who hasn't already as it deeply informs my interpretations of all forms of media. I am deeply involved in studying declassified documents, analyzing information, making predictions, etc. for a living. Politically, I consider myself an orphan. I am neither pro-Democrat or pro-Republican but consider myself pro-human, and when I look back at the damage both sides have done, collectively, to both the American citizenry (selling out to corporate interests amongst other more insidious psychological damage in exchange for profiteering) as well as citizenry abroad in unnecessary foreign wars, it saddens me. I am reminded of the time on C-SPAN where Biden as a Senator chastised a UN Weapons Inspector "Scotty boy" who tried to stand in the way of getting involved in Iraq and was on the side of peace and diplomacy, while the rest of the war machine had their eyes set on Iraq long before we got involved.

I'm not sure where I land on the spectrum re recent developments with Trump and am not enough of a legal scholar to know the merits, but I think the reactions to the news are more important than the developments themselves. Did he sell the intelligence? Does him having it result in possible loss of human life? Has it resulted in loss of life? We toast to an indictment of a former president as the possibility of him being put behind bars - but would we toast to a serial killer finally being put behind bars who murdered scores of innocent children with the same reaction? It's the glee that BOTH sides (yes republicans are equally as guilty) have on scoring points that disturbs me - rather than pursuing an objective and independent analyses of the facts, wherever they may lead, without relying on that so called analysis to be spoon fed by someone else for us to simply regurgitate. I realize I have the luxury of time in being able to analyze a lot of things (Assange, by the way, has provided a treasure trove and I'll just leave it at that), but all I can say is that I am just SAD. But Jim, when you mention your own leanings, your neighbors / neighborhood being Trump supporters, and how everyone is able to remain friendly / respectful, it gives me hope that we can hopefully all somehow get along and ride out this crazy storm. There is a visceral hatred / dislike toward anything Trump around me (I'm agnostic, politically), but this behavior disturbs me. As empires reach their limits of expansion, however (not overt expansion, I am also speaking about hegemony and the ability to drive beneficial terms of trade, control over resources (natural and human), dominant currency, etc. etc.), things can get mighty turbulent!

[JimHow]

Amen, Jimmy! I too have loved this thread. Sometimes it gets a little hot, and I know I've gotten over the top a little bit sometimes, but it is certainly not my intention to see anyone offended. I completely respect everyone's viewpoints and, certainly, without any doubt, there are compelling arguments on the side of seeing this dink prosecuted to the full extent of the law and sent to the federal penitentiary where he can squeal like a pig for the rest of his living days. I despise that pig.

I think it's almost impossible to have a discussion like this just about anywhere else on the web, except for the spirit of goodwill that we have otherwise developed here on this site. I heartily encourage anyone here to continue to disagree with any viewpoints made here, especially mine. I assure you I continue to respect your opinions! We live in fascinating times, for better or worse. Let's argue passionately, but continue to drink life to the lees as friends and BWEers, here, in our own little oasis, the greatest wine web site in the world!

[tim]

Count me in as someone who has a visceral hatred/dislike for Trump. But it is not due to his politics, some of which I find distasteful and others I might even support. It is his character. He is the opposite of everything we should be teaching our children. And when those nice neighbors of JimHow display their support of Trump, they are elevating his lack of character as a role model. Sorry, but I don't find that particularly endearing regardless of now nice they are. It is disgraceful. It is deplorable.

The man has done many corrupt things in his life and was rewarded for them. The line must be drawn. Either you allow him to continue to break laws that create a stench of corruption, destroying what has been the most long-lasting governmental system in modern times, or you don't. I know where I stand.

[JimHow]

I understand your point, Timmy, but that makes at least 75 million Americans deplorable. I just can't go that far. My neighbors who bring me eggs for breakfast and are part of our friendly little community here on Pinewoods Road find something that resonates in his message. I'm sorry, I can't equate this with the Nazi experience in 1930s Germany. Not everybody who supports Orange Head is our enemy. I actually think Trump is a closet liberal, he's pro-choice, he's pro gay rights, he's... well, okay, he's a raging racist, but so have been many Democratic presidents. Dean Martin refused to go to John Kennedy's inaugural because Kennedy wouldn't invite Sammy, lest he offend the white bigots who elected him. You want me to go through Democratic president crimes in office? I suggest we Democrats not cast stones here, my brothers.

[JimHow]

Starting with that greatest monster in human history, by the way, one Harry S. Truman.
When I was in politics there would be the occasional reference to HST, because of my "plain spoken" approach to issues. And I would immediately shy away from and challenge it. Don't mention me in the same breath as the devil (I hope he is burning in hell) who incinerated hundreds of thousands of innocent "Japs," without even a formal order on his way back from Potsdam.... And he would have dropped a third one if someone had finally said, um, maybe we should take a break here for a day or two...

God bless America... But a few random papers in boxes in a bathtub... The horror...

Okay, got it... Let's put this asshole in prison, Because, you know, all of our other former presidents have been shining beacons of justice and democracy.

Got it.

Should we turn to LBJ?

[JimHow]

Poll:

The least number of foreign citizens were killed as a result of American imperialist military drone strikes, in which the perpetrators had ZERO chance of being killed, occurred in which administration:

Barack Obama
Donald J. Trump
Joe Biden