President Trump

[Racer Chris]

Donald Trump was at the center of a multi-pronged conspiracy to steal the election. The insurrection was only one of the plans.
A significant amount of the evidence has already been made public.

[Racer Chris]

We drank a 375 of Laurent Perrier La Cuvee tonight to mark today's indictment.
Mary says she'll pay for a bottle of Krug to open when the conviction for these charges is handed down.

[JimHow]

I have seen many an indictment, Chris, that looked strong on paper, only to crumble in the end.

I just got a multi count sexual assault case dismissed against a local lawyer, the corrupt Maine State Police don’t like me too much these days. I offered Orange Head my services, but have not heard back.

https://www.sunjournal.com/2023/07/05/c ... ation=true

[Hm$(still)]

For those of you looking to do a deep dive as to why the indictment reads the way it does, I heartily recommend the following law review article published months ago, but which was clearly in the special prosecutor’s mind when he drafted it:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=4256652

It’s not so legalistic that you need a law degree to appreciate it.

Hm$

[JimHow]

Interesting article, Howard, thanks for posting. I’m only a quarter of the way through.

[DavidG]

Thank you Howard. That article helped me understand Jim’s position and made me reconsider my own.

I do still believe that Trump tried to overthrow our democracy, and that there was more to it than political speech. And that he should be held accountable for it by our legal system.

But I also still believe that he’ll get away with it. The lengths to which the prosecution would have to go to prove “overt acts” beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury are laid bare in that law review article. I think it’s a bridge too far.

Then again, Jack Smith is no dummy and he’s coming at Trump from several angles with the different charges. I think he’ll have a tough time getting a conviction on any of them.

Will Trump cut a plea deal? Doubt that he’ll ever admit to a crime.

[Blanquito]

Given the high bar involved in proving intent, as Howard’s article makes crystal clear, one must assume the prosecutors have compelling witness testimony and evidence — the recorded call to Brad Raffensperger is probably just the tip of the iceberg. What if someone like Mark Meadows comes forward and lays the conspiracy utterly bare and has hard proofs (memos, emails, more recordings) to back his testimony up?

It doesn’t mean it will hold up in court and Trump is as slippery as any Costa Nostra crime lord (but whom the DoJ has plenty of experience going after), but I expect we’ll see an overwhelming deluge of evidence, a la the January 6th committee’s work.

Certainly the documents case seems far more straightforward, aside for the judge and the locale, to win on its merits.

[Jay Winton]

Once again, Trump embarrasses our country and yet his supporters continue to fund his legal fees.

[Chateau Vin]

Donald Trump was at the center of a multi-pronged conspiracy to steal the election. The insurrection was only one of the plans.
A significant amount of the evidence has already been made public.

I think these insurrection charges are meh, akin to those NY charges. I don’t think there will be enough evidence to convince the jury either of the charges. Just no beef and waste of tax payers’ money. I feel the sensitive documents case has more teeth and a legitimate one so far what I have seen and so far what I know.

[Racer Chris]

The charges have nothing to do with the insurrection.
It seems to me that Conspiracy to Defraud the American People is sufficient to warrant an indictment of the former president.

[tim]

Howard's article is mostly focused on the attack on the Capitol and how Trump's speech influenced it. I've always been a bit skeptical that the "fight" phrase was considered instigation. Elizabeth Warren used it in her speeches all the time, for example.

But the indictment really centers around the false sets of electors and the intent to replace the certified electors with the false ones. The attack on the Capitol was just a small part of the plan, which was laid out by Eastman. It wasn't just a protest that went out of control. It was an elaborate scheme to overturn the will of the voters and keep the incumbent President in office through illegal means. Had it succeeded, it would have undermined the electoral system and disenfranchised millions of people.

The real coward here is McConnell, who had the chance to stop Trump from running again through impeachment and declined. Now we are in a worse position where Trump could win the election and stop the prosecution. If that happens, I do not see how the US survives as a Constitutional Republic.

[Musigny 151]

Howard's article is mostly focused on the attack on the Capitol and how Trump's speech influenced it. I've always been a bit skeptical that the "fight" phrase was considered instigation. Elizabeth Warren used it in her speeches all the time, for example.

But the indictment really centers around the false sets of electors and the intent to replace the certified electors with the false ones. The attack on the Capitol was just a small part of the plan, which was laid out by Eastman. It wasn't just a protest that went out of control. It was an elaborate scheme to overturn the will of the voters and keep the incumbent President in office through illegal means. Had it succeeded, it would have undermined the electoral system and disenfranchised millions of people.

The real coward here is McConnell, who had the chance to stop Trump from running again through impeachment and declined. Now we are in a worse position where Trump could win the election and stop the prosecution. If that happens, I do not see how the US survives as a Constitutional Republic.

[JimHow]

Man I don’t want you guys on my juries.

This is a political problem, not a legal one. If the left doesn’t like it, then beat him again in 2024. If not, then, well, elections have consequences.

I wash my hands of this, let the younger generations deal with it I say. Fox News has ruined our country. All I care about is that they don’t fuck up my Medicare and social security before I report to the Great Tasting Room in the Sky.

[DavidG]

Interfering with the Constitutionally-mandated transfer of power is a legal problem, not a political problem. Failure to succeed does not change it into a political problem.

[Blanquito]

Interfering with the Constitutionally-mandated transfer of power is a legal problem, not a political problem. Failure to succeed does not change it into a political problem.

Agreed.

[Blanquito]

Yeah, this really isn’t a first amendment issue. I can well and truly believe something, say that a wine store is too expensive and I was ripped off when I found the same wine cheaper elsewhere (and I am allowed to say this on BWE as loudy and often as I like, speech is indeed protected), but my intent and state of mind are irrelevant if I try to rob the store (or in Trump’s case conspire to get a team of shoplifters go do his dirty work for him), even if I feel genuinely owed.

[JimHow]

Remember now, he failed in his efforts. Because the political and civil legal systems held.
We are in very dangerous territory here. Show me he held onto classified documents to do something treasonous like share them with the Russians or saudis, and I'll join your side. Show me he met with the Proud Boys and helped plan out the attack, and I'll join you.
And I'm not buying the Georgia prosecution either. "Find me 10,000 votes." Well, they didn't. And he lost Georgia.
I think the worst thing Trump did was the January 6th speech, which I don't think was criminal.
I just can't get excited about the documents case, to me that's just Orange Head being the dink that he is.

[Racer Chris]

Attempted murder is a crime based on a failed effort too.
What makes you think he wouldn't do something treasonous like share them with the Russians or saudis? He already showed the Russians classified material in the oval office when he was president.
"Stand back, and stand by..."
Trump pressured multiple officials in multiple states, in addition to organizing the fake electors scheme. I think we will hear a lot of squealing from some people who got in a lot deeper than they ever imagined, due to lies told to them by Trump and his minions.
No charges for the January 6th speech so far.

Dink? I don't see how that term covers a tenth of his behavior.
The guy's a two ton petty tyrant. He's peerless at stealing power from the power hungry, and then doling it back out to them as they do his bidding.

[JimHow]

I guess we shall see how this plays out. Even if he's convicted, he'll be in his mid-80s and probably dead by the time the appeals are exhausted.

[DavidG]

Failure to succeed in a criminal enterprise is not grounds for acquittal. My well-researched legal opinion is based on watching all 488 original Law and Order episodes plus the TV film. And having stayed in a Holiday Inn several times.

I do agree that we are on very dangerous ground. Letting an attempt to overthrow one of the bedrock institutions of our democracy pass without legal consequences commensurate with the seriousness of that offense degrades our entire legal and electoral systems. It accepts the concept that we are no longer a nation of laws but are subject to the power of men.

That said, I don’t think he will be convicted. Which would leave us in as much of a quagmire as if he weren’t indicted.

I would be happy with a conviction followed by appeals until death do us part.

[JimHow]

An excellent article by this Harvard Law professor:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/08/opin ... ticleShare
The Prosecution of Trump May Have Terrible Consequences

[Jay Winton]

An excellent article by this Harvard Law professor:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/08/opin ... ticleShare
The Prosecution of Trump May Have Terrible Consequences

one view, a conservative view.

[JimHow]

Gee I thought he was pretty liberal.

[DavidG]

It will have terrible consequences. But it isn't DOJ or Jack Smith that's responsible. It's Trump. And the consequences of looking the other way are worse.

[Blanquito]

Most of the time, it seems the choice we are given is:
(a) prosecuting (let alone convicting and incarcerating) the former president will utterly undermine and weaken our democracy, vs.
(b) letting Trump get away with it will utterly undermine and weaken our democracy.

Assuming for the moment the risk of these two choices is equal (and at the end of the day, I don't think it is*), our democracy is screwed either way, unless one is absolutely convinced that (a) Trump will lose re-election in 2024 (he is all but certain to lose the popular vote for the third time; it is only our undeniably anti-democratic Electoral College that gives an extreme candidate like Trump any chance at all), and (b) no one like Trump (or Trump himself in 2028) will come along and try to overthrow our democracy again through illegal and legal means.

If you really think Trump will lose and the GOP will be come a normal party again, you might have a point for letting Trump's attempted coup slide. But if you think either Trump might win and/or future coups are more likely if Trump is allowed to get off scot-free, I think we have no choice but to hold accountable Trump now; indeed, this is probably our only and certainly our best chance to do so.

And even if we dropped the prosecutions and Trump loses in 2024, he is more or less guaranteed to try to subvert the election result all over again (which admittedly will be much harder from outside the White House than in it), the vast majority of the Republican rank and file are sure to believe that the election was stolen, and contesting any election they lose as "corrupt", "rigged", etc, is likely the new normal for the GOP in general (as a template, see what Rick Scott was saying and doing when it looked like he was going to lose his Senate race in the 2018 election to incumbent Bill Nelson, which he ended up wining by only ~0.2%).

What real incentive do moderates and liberals and the rest of the sane portion of our country have but to do what we think is right, given that the negative consequences of action or inaction are likely to occur whether we sit still or act?

*I think if Trump is convicted and thrown in jail, the vast majority of the country will shrug and forget about him quickly, the GOP elites will (secretly) be delighted, and everyone will move on in short order.

[JimHow]

If the case for conviction is as strong as David says it is, take heart, Orange Head will be spending his final years in medium security.
I am not as alarmed by you, Patrick, about what happens if Trump loses in 2024.
If we beat Trump in 2024, the GOP will scurry faster than rats leaving a sinking ship.
I think if we can beat Trump in 2024 a second time we will finally lance the boil.
As you said, he won't be able to wreak as much havoc from outside the White House.
And if we can't beat him a second time after all this, well, then elections have serious consequences and we will get what we deserve.
By prosecuting him, though, now we are weaponizing the Biden DOJ in the eyes of half the country, and even if we win in 2024 then it will be deemed illegitimate.
A couple things give me a molecule of hope:
In the Republican pool, I'm seeing only one other fascist -- the little-penised man from Florida -- who I could envision trying to subvert the election results. But he doesn't have the depth to do it and hopefully he is going to be a very small footnote in the pantheon of American bigotry soon anyway. The other Republican candidates I am having difficulty seeing seriously trying to subvert democracy in 2024.
Also, I think we've seen some major victories in the past couple years, in part the result of the Republican overreach on abortion.
That Wisconsin Supreme Court victory was enormous last year. And the Democrats have actually shown some electoral gumption, bordering on ruthlessness, in Michigan and Pennsylvania, finally getting their acts to gather at the state and local level.
The US Supreme Court probably did us a favor in Dobbs, as we saw last night in Ohio. On to Florida, North Carolina, Arizona, etc.
To me, the only thing we can do is screw this up by prosecuting Orange Head on, as the author noted, somewhat "novel" charges.

[DavidG]

If the case for conviction is as strong as David says it is, take heart, Orange Head will be spending his final years in medium security.

Please show me where I wrote that the case for conviction is strong. I wrote opposite: I don’t think he’ll be convicted. I do think he should be.

I am not as alarmed by you, Patrick, about what happens if Trump loses in 2024.
If we beat Trump in 2024, the GOP will scurry faster than rats leaving a sinking ship.
I think if we can beat Trump in 2024 a second time we will finally lance the boil.
As you said, he won't be able to wreak as much havoc from outside the White House.
And if we can't beat him a second time after all this, well, then elections have serious consequences and we will get what we deserve.

I agree with this.

By prosecuting him, though, now we are weaponizing the Biden DOJ in the eyes of half the country, and even if we win in 2024 then it will be deemed illegitimate.

I agree here too, in essence, but I don’t really care. I don’t care if delusional or gullible people who think Trump won in 2020 and that he did nothing wrong feel that the DOJ is illegitimate or weaponized. (I assume you mean politically weaponized, the DOJ should be weaponized against criminal actions.) Just like I don’t care that there are already Oregon and Michigan paramilitary groups who believe they aren’t subject to Federal law. Well, I don’t care about their crackpot idiocy but I do care inasmuch as they suck up resources that are better spent elsewhere. That, and the likelihood that he’ll get off, are why I agree that it’s terrible for the country. But it isn’t the DOJ that’s to blame for upholding the law.


Finally, I’m completely with you on the yearning for a glimmer of hope.

[tim]

I am less confident than either of you. Trump represents the greatest threat to the survival of the US as it exists today since the Civil War. He weaponizes his followers in order to satisfy his narcissistic and authoritarian cravings and avoid consequences for violating laws.

As for the case for conviction, we haven't seen all the evidence yet. From that which we have seen, the cases seem solid but not foolproof. The twitter reveal suggests that the government has a lot more evidence than we know of.

I am very fearful of the next 18 months.

[JimHow]

My neighbors took down their Trump sign after the last indictment, I don’t know if I should read anything into that.

[DavidG]

Tim I do remain concerned about scattered violence if Trump is convicted or if he is the Republican nominee and loses. I didn’t mean to downplay that. But I don’t think we’ll face as organized an attempt to take over the government. Or if we do we’ll be better prepared.

The outcome I fear most is that Trump will escape conviction and be elected President. In that case I’m in full agreement that Trump poses the greatest threat to the US since the Civil War.

I think it likely Trump will be acquitted, but I’m not privy to all the stuff the DOJ has on him.

It’s way too early to make predictions about the election with any level of confidence. But I’m worried. Very worried. The positives Jim cites a couple of posts back offer a glimmer of hope. But a Presidential election is not a single-issue race.

[DavidG]

My neighbors took down their Trump sign after the last indictment, I don’t know if I should read anything into that.

They don’t want to draw attention to themselves so they can arm and gear up for the next insurrection?

[stefan]

>>
Trump represents the greatest threat to the survival of the US as it exists today since the Civil War.
>>

Come on, Tim. Greater than the threat of nuclear war with the USSR? Actually, the best thing I can say about Trump is that he is unlikely to get us into a war with Russia.

[tim]

The threat of a nuclear war was a threat to the planet and life as we know it, so the US would cease to exist. But I find Trump being re-elected to be far more likely than nuclear Armageddon is or was, even in the 60s (though I did not live through that time). His re-election would destroy the U.S. government. He will not accept defeat if he loses. He has already changed the system to the point where reality doesn't exist. All that matters is what you believe.

[Blanquito]

…the best thing I can say about Trump is that he is unlikely to get us into a war with Russia.

Indeed. We’re more like to go to war with Russia as Putin’s ally if Trump is re-elected!

[Blanquito]

Tim I do remain concerned about scattered violence if Trump is convicted or if he is the Republican nominee and loses.

I think widespread violence is much more likely to occur again if Trump loses in 2024, both because the stakes are so much higher (it is about who gets to control the White House after all and everyone who wants to gets to actively participate for months before and on the event) and because like Jim even if he’s convicted I’m guessing the election will occur well before Trump actually goes to jail, given how long the trial and appeals process is likely to play out.

If Trump loses and then actually gets sent to jail after the election, my hunch is no one will care enough to riot or shoot anyone, etc.

[DavidG]

Patrick, I think tensions will be highest and the risk of violence greatest between the time of the election and swearing in, and also around the time of the initial verdict if there is a conviction. Tensions will likely diffuse if there are appeals as they wear on.

I’m not sure how widespread violence would be, or really even how to define that term. Violence in DC and a number of Trump stronghold areas wouldn’t surprise me. DC will be ready. Not so sure about other places.

[tim]

If Trump is convicted (and I believe there is a high likelihood of that happening), he will not go to jail pending appeal. And the appeals process will take a long time.

[Hm$(still)]

My understanding of the federal rules regarding release pending appeal is that it is not a given that you remain free during your appeal period. Jim?

Howard

[JimHow]

That is indeed correct, Howard, I can easily see the DC judge ordering him held pending appeal. In fact he’s flirting with having bail revoked like the crypto guy.

[Hm$(still)]

I promise you that if he get’s locked up, I will be on site for his surrender, sipping an expensive aged Bordeaux looking like this:

Hm$

IMG_0034.jpeg (12.86 KiB) Viewed 26758 times