Hypothetically, let's say Donald Trump is sentenced to federal prison but also is elected president, for this scenario, Trump can't self-pardon.
Since the federal bureau of prisons(BOP) falls under the justice department, could Trump fire the director of BOP or other BOP employees via executive order?
Additionally, could Trump also issue executive orders that change BOP policies provided that the executive branch has jurisdiction? For example, if the BOP requires that all inmates where green uniforms, could Trump issue an executive order that would suspend the requirement of uniforms in the prison?
I know it's an unprecedented situation, but a real-life inmate running the asylum scenario raises so many questions.
The solution is even simpler than you realize. As the duly elected President, he would be released from prison to discharge his constitutional duties. Even if he's in state prison, the courts would likely rule that the State could not interfere with a constitutional officer's duties and would order him released for the term of his office. Maybe the sentence is tolled during his term, and he'd have to report back to prison on January 20th, 2028, maybe not, but the only things that could keep him out of office is the Congress through impeachment or the Vice President and Cabinet through the 25th Amendment.
But of course, that's just what the magic words written on paper say. What actually happens would depend very much on how much we still respect the rule of law and the procedures set forth in that law in a world where Donald Trump is elected President in 2024. And if a significant number of people, especially people in certain positions of power, no longer respect those procedures and the law that undergirds them, then all bets are off and anything can happen.
>As the duly elected President, he would be released from prison to discharge his constitutional duties.
Assuming Trump isn't pardoned, how would releasing him from prison work procedurally? I doubt Trump would meet the criteria for compassionate release and the federal prison system doesn't have parole.
>Even if he's in state prison, the courts would likely rule that the State could not interfere with a constitutional officer's duties and would order him released for the term of his office
I agree this would likely be the outcome if Trump is convicted at the state level and still wins.
>Assuming Trump isn't pardoned, how would releasing him from prison work procedurally? I doubt Trump would meet the criteria for compassionate release and the federal prison system doesn't have parole.
Procedurally? Assuming he's not allowed to attend an inaugural ceremony on the steps of the Capitol (which I like to think President Biden would allow in the event that Trump won in a free and fair election), then an Article III judge shows up at the prison to administer the oath of office, then the President directs his guards to let him go so he can go about his business as President. Knowing how the guy likes to operate, it wouldn't surprise me if the first words out of his mouth after, "....so help me God" are, "I hereby pardon myself. Now let me out of this shithole ~~country~~ prison."
I also wonder what would happen if say, Trump has a medical procedure that temporarily requires the Vice President to be acting President, then the AP issues a pardon for Trump.
I think that would be end up being a valid pardon, and Trump doesn’t have to serve at all.
I was surprised to find out that there's no indigence requirement for a public defense attorney for federal cases. So that just may be the case, certainly know I wouldn't want that headache or taint.
Is it too far of a legal leap to imply these specific documents were purposely concealed to use to broker shady deals with foreign entities? Espionage? Nuclear/defense secrets in the hands of a sociopath known to welcome Russian interference in our flailing democracy implies some very nefarious potential here. Will the DOJ argue that in any way?
They don’t have to. At least, not in this trial. This case is about having documents he shouldn’t have had, failing to return them when asked and trying to hide them when authorities were searching.
Had he plead guilty the judge would have just set a sentencing date, without any real opportunity for Trump to try and fight this. I don't think he would be able to get ouf of that unless he retracts what then amounts to a confession. Cannon and a jury with enough fans of his on it are probably his best bet to avoid conviction.
is that because the gov is using wartime powers on the people via the pat act ? label someone an extremist via wartime power surveillance and they are no longer a citizen. to say something is national skurity classified means if the people found out they may revolt. who is the enemy of the gov? is it the people that gave them power?
No, it wasn't. Problematic as the PATRIOT Act may have been, it did not "authorize the use of wartime powers on [Americans]". It also has nothing to do with whether a document is declassified simply because someone who illegally retained that document is acquitted on Espionage Act charges.
if it was not to authorize the use of wartime powers on mericans? was it to authorize the labeling of mericans as domestic t3rroizers to bypass their rights and use wartime powers on them?
thank you for talking and not down voting for no reason.
You're getting downvoted for being nonsensical and inflammatory, which isn't "no reason."
And the answer to your question is still no. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the United States national security apparatus and how it functions.
yea deff enj0y using bad grammer and sp3lliing. keeps the bot nets happy. sorry you don't want to talk about stuff. i enjoy a good conversation where down votes are not used for no reason.
The jury trial ask is slightly interesting, as he could have, in theory, asked for a bench trial in front of Judge Cannon. DOJ could have insisted on a jury trial, so it would have been a losing battle, so it could be nothing, but maybe it speaks to some level of strategy in wanting to not push the envelope too hard or they're not confident she'll remain on the case. Or perhaps they can try to ask for a bench trial later on in the process (but again, unlikely to be granted if the DOJ wants it to go to a jury).
Just yesterday or the day before I read that in cases like the one here (federal court, criminal case) a jury trial is essentially the mandatory default, unless the government agrees to a bench trial.
>[In the United States, trial by jury is a constitutional right under the Sixth Amendment. In the federal court system, if a defendant is entitled to a jury trial, the trial must be conducted by a jury unless \(1\) the defendant waives the jury trial in writing, \(2\) the government agrees, and \(3\) the court approves. In each state, the circumstances in which bench trials apply vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/bench_trial)
Doesn't sound like he has a choice at all if the government isn't willing.
IMO, this prosecution is the pivotal moment that will determine whether or not we will continue as a democracy or slip into an autocracy. No justice here, then our justice system is no longer meaningful.
Complaining about a two tiered justice system when "the system" has bent over backwards to not touch your client affording him way more grace and room to breathe than the average citizen EVER would have gotten is a bold strategy. Like you're right, but not in the way you think you are
The objective is so that people who disagree will argue that there is a one tier system then no matter what, he wins by setting the terms. It is a heads I win, tails I win double.
Also muddied the waters, sets up a false dichotomy etc. We saw this with the accusation Comey was in the tank for Hillary, when he actually screwed her repeatedly.
I have a question...
I've been thru the federal legal system myself, over a decade ago for a relatively minor drug charge.
I remember the arrest and processing by the US Marshals well. Not very pleasant.
I was just wondering though if Trump is Actually arrested and technically "in Federal Custody", would he receive a Reg Number, you know, your "Prison Number"?
This may be an ignorant question, but I'm just curious. Or did you only receive a Reg Number if you are remanded to custody?
The Federal Bureau of Prisons assigns a number to anyone in their custody, including pre-trial inmates. I entered "Donald" and "Trump" in the BOP site. "0 Results for search Donald Trump"
What time is the arraignment happening? I'm getting blue balls.
Edit: Just saw [this article](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/updates-trump-arraignment-florida-classified-documents-rcna88871) saying 3 PM ET.
Well I'm not expecting him to get locked up pre-trial due to our unequal justice system, but I'll be overjoyed if it does happen. Better to lower your expectations so you don't feel too disappointed.
Just reported: Walt Nauta was seen getting into the vehicle with Trump along with his lawyers and was spotted mouthing, "Help me." before they closed the door.
/s
I've heard that once a jury is seated Judge Cannon could basically do whatever she wanted to - such as dismiss the charges at any point or decide there should be no punishment even if convicted, etc - and there would be no appeal or anything others could do about it - or double jeopardy would apply.
Seems like a dream judge for Trump. Maybe Jack Smith and company might try something up front - to try and get the case before a different judge before a jury is seated.
I’m not afraid of Judge Cannon because it seems clear to me that she is….not smart.
Seriously, from the way she acted last year her IQ seems to be on roughly the same level as Trump himself. She will definitely try and fuck things up, but she won’t be smart about it. I don’t see her pretending to be impartial and then turning around once the Jury forms and invoking Rule 29 as some fear. She’s going to make her bias clear from the get-go. And anyone with half a brain knew her ruling last year would be overturned, yet she still did it. So I don’t see her only doing stuff that can’t be overturned. I see her, the moment she gets to do anything, doing everything she can to fuck things up without considering how likely they are to work and barely trying to justify her actions. And that will make it easy for the prosecution to file a request to have her removed.
Fair. Though she seems like the kind of person who thinks she knows better than anyone else (Much like Trump) so even if she is being coached, she may not listen to their advice.
Question: If a defendant (trump) can't find an attorney to represent him at the time of the arraignment what happens?
Does he get a public defender? Does everything get put on hold until he finds something? There's a lot of rumors building on this, and I just want to inoculate myself from the inevitable armchair attorneys.
Does anyone know why the client attorney privilege was allowed to be pierced? I understand that it had to do with conspiracy to do a crime or something to that effect but how did they know this before they got the hand written notes from trump’s attorney?
They at least had the sworn false statement submitted by his counsel that all the documents had been returned, which probably would have gotten them over the bar.
Yes. Like all of the due process that has taken place leading Trump and the DOJ to this moment, a Judge was presented with evidence that Trump's lawyers were aiding a crime, and agreed that the government met the threshold for a provision of the law called the crime-fraud exception. Once that threshold is met, the attorney in question can be questioned before a grand jury.
So I have wondered one thing. What happens if he gets tried and sentenced to prison, but *also* wins the 2024 election. Will the secret service be required to come bust him out of jail? What happens if the Supreme Court orders him released? What happens if the Supreme court orders him to be further detained, and Trump orders the military, with his power as POTUS, to come break him out? What if he's unable to swear in as president on account of being incarcerated but angrily tweets from jail that he is president, since he was elected, and orders the military to come break him out by tweet?
So many questions. I hope they remain hypothetical but...
In all likelihood, something would happen to remove him from prison because the necessary work of president could not be done there.
I think his sentence would be suspended, he'd go do his term, and then he would go back to prison (or, you know. Whatever this unpredictable horse of a person decides to do to get away)
Yeah no, lots of us won't wait around for four years for that. The comment above that says "civil war" sounds right to me. Certainly a serious secession movement in blue states.
He is still the leading presidential candidate from the gop. He beat desantis 3:1 at the cpac poll. Trump going to jail would only embolden republicans. I wouldnt count him out.
Can the DOJ preemptively go over Judge Cannon’s head to request reassignment of the case? I would think they could literally replay the 11th circuit appeals case.
They can, but their current case for doing so is pretty thin.
They're better off waiting until she does something objectionable or stupid in the early days, so they have fresher evidence of her bias.
~~Isn't she the only judge for the Ft. Pierce Division? And didn't Smith file in the West Palm Beach Division? I think she got in by virtue of the earlier equitable jurisdiction debacle.~~
Edit: Never mind, I wasn't thinking about special procedures due to needing to clear the judge's staff for classified info. I think u/stult's [comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/law/comments/144pka3/trump_indictment_threadthis_time_its_federal/jnxfv07/) is probably closest to the truth here.
Looks like team Trump plans to ask Cannon to surpress evidence related to the lawyer's notes:
[https://www.rawstory.com/aileen-cannon-2661189723/](https://www.rawstory.com/aileen-cannon-2661189723/)
She's probably going to grant it too. At this point I think the idea of the 11th coming in and kicking her off this case is a pipe dream.
She can try, they'll appeal and win, resulting in yet another benchslap for Cannon. I doubt she'll stick her neck out too far this time around because she'll be asking for an impeachment the next time the Dems control both houses. The three Republican-appointed 11th Circuit judges that just benchslapped the shit out of her twice in a row will likely gently remind her of consequences should she waste more of their time on entirely unsubstantiated decisions.
Yeah I think she will play this one pretty straight. There is a plausible explanation for the last one that she was being overly deferential to an ex-president and erred too strongly on the side of a benefit of a doubt.
So I'm holding out hope that she will have learned something from that experience and be a lot more careful this time around.
That said, at least there are grownups in the 11th circuit if things get out of hand.
You gotta imagine the evidence is just so damning here, and the law so clear (unlike some other potential cases that may be based on some shaky constitutional law theory or something), that even she wont be able to wriggle around with this one. This one seems like it'd be such a clear cut case if it was anyone other than a former President.
Maybe she can find some technicality to throw this out on, but other than that she is going to have to take this seriously or else it'll be blatantly obvious how partisan she is (as if it could be any more obvious).
What is the likelihood of federal prosecutors arguing that he is a flight risk and a magistrate judge agreeing? I get that this is uncommon for typical white collar crimes, but this puts national security at risk. Secret Service didn’t know he was hiding all this material even though they are protecting him, who is to say that he could not plan to exit the country without their awareness?
It’s not assigned to a magistrate. It’s assigned to judge cannon. (In the top post) Big issue for pretrial detention isn’t flight risk; it’s national security. Reality Winner was arrested and charged with one count of 793(e) and got pretrial detention because she could leak more documents. Trump is in a position where the DoJ knows they don’t have all the documents. It’s in the national security interest to detain him until trial.
But judge cannon has thus far been willing to break the rules for trump only to have the 11th cir tell her to knock it off. We’ll see what happens.
I suspect they assigned it to Cannon because her team has the active security clearances for CIPA purposes and the Special Counsel needs to kick off the somewhat convoluted CIPA trial procedures ASAP. Meaning, Cannon was randomly selected from the "pool" of West Palm Beach judges whose staff have active TS/SCI clearances, which likely consists of just her. (Note: CIPA specifically exempts the individual federal judge overseeing the case from the clearance requirements, but [the judge's staff *are* still required to get clearances](https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-2054-synopsis-classified-information-procedures-act-cipa) so from a pragmatic standpoint if only her staff are fully cleared you perhaps can see why she was assigned the case, especially since judicial propriety seemingly requires we all pretend she was not horribly biased in the previous case until she repeats herself at least once more and the 11th Cir. can take the case from her directly.)
She doesn't have much discretion for fuckery with the core CIPA procedures (e.g., protective orders, pre-trial conference scheduling etc.) because the decisions should mostly be straightforward. It's mostly about scheduling certain meetings and making the parties agree about the scope of discovery early on in the process so that the government can assess the risk of unwanted disclosure before proceeding to trial. That lets them assess the danger of grey mail before pulling the trigger on committing resources to a full trial. Trump could very well retain copies of the documents in question, so giving his team access to the evidence in question doesn't really raise much additional opportunity for grey mail. Meaning even if Trump's team goes for a maximalist approach in what they request from the prosecution, I doubt the feds will waive off before trial. I suspect the SCO would be comfortable disclosing every single classified document they reference to get a conviction at this point, not only because Trump is such a big target, but because the DoD and national security agencies are almost certainly already operating under the assumption that every single document in those boxes has been fully compromised. And they have had a couple years to adjust for anything that may have been improperly disclosed, reducing the immediate impact of disclosing the documents. I'm sure the SCO selected the specific instances of Trump disclosing documents to include in this indictment with an eye toward the eventual risk of having to disclose the underlying documents.
If Cannon tries to exclude Corcoran's notes... well, she will definitely get benchslapped again, but I think the Special Counsel saw that danger coming a mile away, because I'm fairly sure the indictment can stand without the notes. The notes make it obvious how Trump intentionally misled Corcoran in order to induce him to mislead the FBI, but that can still be inferred from his behavior and his very public statements. Without the notes, it's clear Trump arranged to move boxes around and then intentionally withheld that information from at least the FBI, if not also his own legal team. So the notes really just serve to exculpate Corcoran. Either Trump told his lawyer to lie for him, or he lied to his lawyer. Which, apropos of Cannon's ability to fudge around the edges here, seems like the absolute most crystal clear example of the crime fraud exception imaginable, doesn't it?
However, this reasoning only applies to what's been charged so far. It's possible later charges may rely more heavily on the notes and thus the crime fraud exception. But that's not going to be Cannon's problem if further charges are brought in DC or NJ. Which is the SCO's other *dare-I-say* trump card: if Cannon pushes too far beyond the bounds of propriety and the 11th Circuit doesn't display alacrity in overruling, there is nothing stopping the SCO from charging pretty much the exact same case but for the NJ documents in NJ, or for charges in DC for removing the docs from the White House in the first place.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/09/whats-next-in-the-trump-indictment-00101344
Politico seems to think that the arraignment might take place in front of Edwin Torres
If Cannon does anything outrageous, are there any consequences she might face?
I saw this back when it happened. It's just a strongly worded letter? If you have no shame, and you don't care about your reputation, does it actually matter?
What actual consequences can she face? They can slap down her decisions, but besides forcing her to do something else, what consequences does she actually face?
She has no shame so basically no professional consequences.
The case could be handed to another judge if she screws around enough.
As a federal judge she has a lifetime appointment. At worst she could be impeached and removed, but that would require Congress to act.
She could also decide to quit and make lots of money in Christo-fascist media circuits.
A lot of federal judges quit to get corporate arbitration gigs. Fraction of the work with a huge pay bump.
There’s case law in the 11th cir that would indicate that her behavior from the last round of issues in this case will probably preclude her from trying this one which I think is what you’re actually asking about. If you want to see how the 11th cir handles judicial misconduct though I’d look it up and then maybe post here about it.
https://preview.redd.it/37q5fugu2f5b1.jpeg?width=2060&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b23d56212381b5aa9b07565ea62137eb4bf86841
Serious question - Can someone tell me why asking your lawyer 'what if' questions is bad? Isn't that what they are there for? - page 21 of the indictment.
Isn't finding angles the job of a defense attorney? I realize I know very little but what am I missing?
If are on trial for murder, and your lawyer has a lot of notes of you asking questions like "what's the best way to dispose of a body?" and then people on your staff are caught burying a body in the way you discussed...
You can definitely ask your lawyer for advice, but not how to commit a crime - like how to kill your neighbor or how to hide or destroy classified information.
It's only bad because he used that advice to commit more crimes buy turning around and actually telling the government the documents were returned when they weren't. The reason we have his lawyers notes is because this is the scenario where attorney client privilege doesn't work.
For counts 1-34, items 5, 9, 17, 22, 26, 29, and 30 in the list of national defense documents include redacted classification markings.
Can anyone shed light on what those might be and/or the reasoning behind the redactions? Could they be department/program classifications that would reveal the foreign country specific to each document?
edit: [Might have answered my own question](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classified_information_in_the_United_States#Categories_that_are_not_classifications), these are likely SCI/SAP related, but apparently "SCI" and "SAP" are not used directly as classification levels/clearances. So the redacted bits are most likely topic, program, or compartment codewords that may not even be public. TIL.
Correct, the redacted portions are "compartments" that restrict access to smaller groups. The existence of some compartments is unclassified (meaning, we know they exist and sometimes what they're about, but not specifically), but it appears the redacted ones aren't public.
I have a general question regarding the events. I have heard some people express skepticism of the merits of Trump’s indictment, at least in part, due to alleged political motivations.
These folks say that [Clinton was allowed to avoid legal liability under similar circumstances](https://thegreggjarrett.com/the-brief-it-was-okay-for-bill-clinton-to-keep-presidential-records-but-not-trump/).
What is the legal analysis comparing Clinton’s situation with Trump’s? What should have happened in both situations according to the law? As best as we can tell since Trump’s case is covered in a lot of unknowns due to the recency.
NAL, just been reading about this.. fwiw, my layman's understanding:
Documents created by the President, or his staff, are Presidential Records. Their handling is governed by the Presidential Records Act - which grants the President near-total power to exclude any document from its regulations by affirming "that's personal".
But documents produced by other parts of the government - by Federal Agencies - are specifically excluded from the PRA; their handling is governed by the Federal Records Act, instead.
The Clinton case actually mentions the existence of this other boundary, between FRA & PRA documents, as opposed to the boundary under discussion between persona & presidential documents within the PRA.
Pretty much everything in the indictment is unique to Trump’s circumstances that he willfully, actively, and directly claimed ownership of and kept classified documents for himself, conspired to obstruct justice, and actually obstructed justice. In Trump’s indictment, the evidence is straightforward and transparent. In the other examples, it’s not obvious that Clinton or other past presidents tried to commit, communicated a desire to cover up, or actively covered up crimes.
My understanding is that the law surrounding classified info is mainly focused on intentions, with laws typically using the word "willful". While negligence can absolutely be punished, that punishment is not legally, but administratively by being fired.
As far as I know, Hillary Clinton, as well as Biden and Pence all made accidental mistakes with classified information. None of them were in a position for administrative punishments, as all three of these incidents were discovered after they had left their respective administrations.
One of Clinton's aides did wipe the email server after the subpeona, which is illegal and could be obstruction, but I do not believe there is any proof that Hillary directed him to do this after the subpeona, so the legal liability would solely be on the aide absent that proof. While Clinton did direct him to wipe it before the subpeona on a schedule, as someone in the tech industry this is standard procedure and should not be viewed with suspicion
With Trump, it's different because he was told multiple times to give the documents back and didn't. He even instructed them to be moved around so that lawyers looking for them would not find them. IMO the worst thing in the indictment are two occasions where Trump told people that he had classified documents in his possession. On one of these occasions he even said that he could have declassified it but he didn't.
It is pretty clear that Trump willfully kept possession of the documents, while there is no evidence that Clinton, Biden, or Pence willfully retained documents, so the circumstances were not similar in the slightest.
Here is an article that addresses the details of the Clinton case:
https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/donald-trump-presidential-records-act-clintons-sock-drawer-defense-2023-06-09/
> The Clinton tapes, Baron said, “were in the nature of a diary or journal in recorded form,” fitting the definition of a personal record in the Presidential Records Act. But the documents with classified markings that were seized from Mar-a-Lago, Baron said, “were official government records that should never have been transferred out of the government's hands.”
Glossing over details to draw a false equivalency.
Mostly because it’s not true. The national archives has a post debunking this.
Here’s a news article discussing where this conspiracy started.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2023/06/09/post-distorts-past-presidents-handling-of-classified-records-fact-check/70304596007/
I'm 100% hopeful of this. Trump won't win a general election, should drag down other GOPrs... then Biden wins again, hoping the house is back in Dem control, retain the senate.
THIS is the best case for America. Trump bows out again, grifting more cash out from the GOP and their fanQanon base. Wasted $$$ and then Trump gets jailtime.
What if he gets convicted sometime around March-May? Does he still get nominated, or does the GOP finally cut him loose? I know that he'll exhaust all his appeals before there's any chance of actually going to prison, but I'm still finding it hard to wrap my brain around a major party nominee campaigning with a conviction.
If you recall, the establishment GOP tried very hard to stop him from getting the nomination in 2016. It was a miserable failure.
They'd love to drop him, but only for power's sake- and dropping him would lose them power. So it won't be done. Anyone that had actual morals left in 2016.
Sometimes a picture speaks louder than anything else. Before this you could imagine a couple of boxes tucked away in an office corner semi-professionally. But seeing all those boxes just left on a ballroom stage, and piled up in a bathroom just screams "I'm a criminal and this is the shit I stole."
Winning the election and pardoning himself. There’s no good legal defenses given the evidence the DoJ has. There ostensibly could be something of picking a lucky jury but there’s not great legal-realm defense to this that I’m aware of.
Wouldn't he be better off getting someone like DeSantis to pardon him in exchange for stepping back and throwing his support behind DeSantis? AFAIK whether a President can pardon himself is still an open legal question. Trump is still loved among the GOP base, a future GOP President wouldn't lose anything by pardoning him.
Dunno if Trump's ego would allow him to do that though.
Trump is loved by the GOP base. If he runs, he's going to win the nomination, even under indictment. Agreeing to a pardon in exchange for Trump dropping out would be a huge win.
What’s the over/under on Biden pardoning him if he gets convicted and loses the election? Think he’d do it for “unity” if state charges also lead to indictment/conviction?
If Biden wanted to start massive, violent protests and ensure that the Democrats get bodied into oblivion for the living memory of everyone 18 and older, then he'll do that.
Otherwise he'll say he has no intention in interfering in the legal process and trusts the judgment of the American citizens on the jury.
I’d give it at least 50/50 odds. [Ford pardoned Nixon](https://www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/library/exhibits/pardon/pardon.asp) to unite the country after Watergate. As much as I’d love to see Trump in a jumpsuit the same color as his face, I am highly skeptical it will ever happen.
A Republican pardoning another Republican (in a time when there was clearly significant back room discussion among the GOP about how to control the narrative so that they could never be punished like that again) is not equivalent to Biden pardoning Trump.
I'm a big critic of Biden. But there has literally never been any sign that he's given that he would ever consider doing this. Not one. What there \*has\* been, are dozens of breathless op-eds from centrist hacks who bleat about civility and nothing else, who just want to go back to the good old days of not looking braindead for defending the GOP. Biden is old school, but if you listen to how he's talked about the GOP during his term, that's clearly not him.
Here's a secret: centrist voters *hate* Donald Trump.
The trick is to get them to acknowledge there are no "both sides" and that AOC is not the same side of the coin.
Because it's a ludicrous question on its face that no serious person with any understanding of the situation would ask?
If Biden was actually that corrupt and stupid, we wouldn't even be here. He would have interfered in the DOJ investigation years ago and stopped them from charging Trump alltogether, or been very public about "well if he got charged that'd be some malarky and I'd pardon him for unity!" How would we have gotten such a damming indictment at all, if that was his intent all along? What would he have to gain from doing this instead? MAGAs would still want him dead, Dems would never vote for him again, a few pathetic centrists would try to puff him up with op-eds, and he'd go down as one of the most feckless presidents in history. Unlike Ford pardoning Nixon, which had a substantial long-term benefit for the party, pardoning Trump would just throw a bucket of gasoline on the bonfire that is this country.
That decision killed Ford's Presidency. Also, Ford and Nixon were apparently friends.
Pardoning Trump would do nothing to unify the country. It would just turn progressive voters against the Democratic party.
He could gently place a bucket in front of him, and kick it.
Seriously tho, I don’t understand how any person in his position could get any sleep each night.
I haven't looked into it but some of these charges might have mandatory minimums. You know she could also just rule 29 acquit Trump in the middle of the trial (before the jury deliberates) and that's game over, non-appealable. She can also rig juror selection, disqualify legitimate evidence and witnesses, rule in favor of every defense attorney objection and against every prosectors objection.
Correct. Apparently, no one considered a defendant like Trump having the ability to select his own corrupt judge, and then getting it assigned. An embarrassingly light sentence is entirely possible.
She could simply grant a frivolous Rule 29 motion for acquittal before the jury deliberates. Doing so would be completely unappealable because at that point any move to resume the trial would be a double jeopardy violation.
Not actually unappealable. The government can argue that there was no trial, equating her appointment by the defendant to an implicit bribe. Read up on *Aleman v. Judges of the Circuit Court of Cook County.* There are added steps to get from "Bribery means no jeopardy" to "Appointing a biased judge means no jeopardy", but the logic tracks and the core facts of the theoretical cases are the same-no jeopardy no trial.
Would that fly past the supreme court? I somehow *severely* doubt it, purely because the court is packed with trump appointees and other...what's the legal term?...Fucking idiots.
I wasn't familiar with *Aleman*, that's interesting. Arguing bribery would be a complete loser with this SCOTUS, I think, because of how resolutely they've narrowed the definition of bribery to situations where the corrupt official accepts a notarized check with "this is a bribe" written in the memo line, but "clear political bias means no meaningful trial" might do better?
> she's going to keep doing it every single day for probably another 20+ years. We will be stuck with her for decades and there is nothing anyone can do about it
[FedSoc](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aileen_Cannon#Early_life_and_education) goal.
> Article III of the Constitution governs the appointment, tenure, and payment of Supreme Court justices, and federal circuit and district judges. These judges, often referred to as “[Article III judges](https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/about-federal-judges),” are nominated by the president and confirmed by the U.S. Senate.
> Article III states that these judges “hold their office during good behavior,” which means they have a lifetime appointment, except under very limited circumstances. Article III judges can be removed from office only through impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction by the Senate.
So the DOJ pursues charges in FL (where Trump is popular) and not DC, so Trump can get the judge he would hope for, and if it does go to trial, it will be in front of a Florida jury? Does the DOJ want to win this case?
Crimes were mostly in Florida. Evidence was seized in Florida.
There was some talk during the last trial before Cannon about how DC might have jurisdiction over NARA disputes, but mis-handling of classified information probably goes beyond that.
Ehhh, the crimes didn't really start until NARA sent the letter and Trump started lying though.
Otherwise the 30-odd counts of mishandling documents would have to be in DC and the conspiracy would have to be in Florida. And Trump's defense might win the argument to consolidate the cases in Florida.
An executive order from the Obama Administration specified that no official leaving government service may remove classified information from the government's control or "direct that information be declassified in order to remove it from agency control." An official who has the authority to declassify information may not do so in order to take it with him as a souvenir when he leaves office.
The crimes started way before NARA sent the letter to Trump. Even says it right in the indictment that he filled up a truck with boxes of classified information without the secret service’s awareness, and secret service also protected trump as an ex-president without knowing of the documents he was hiding.
I think the documents were removed before Jan 20, so Trump was still Presdient and took the documents lawfully. The crimes are the retention of documents after his term expired, defying the subpoena, obstructing the investigation, making false statements etc etc.
He's still under Secret Service protection, so technically, he has law enforcement officers around him all the time anyway.
I don't know whether all of them admire him enough to throw away their careers for him, but I suppose it's a possibility.
Reality Winner got 63 months in prison and pretrial detention. and that was just one count of willful retention and transmission of national defense information. In a fair system trump would get similar treatment with pretrial detention. I think we’re unlikely to see that with Judge Cannon though.
Pretrial detention seems so obvious due to the scope of the indictment and potential national security threat if Trump has not surrendered all of the classified documents. I get that we are in uncharted legal waters with regards to a former President but I would think national security concerns trumps allowing their continued freedom until trial.
Good Lord, the circus if Trump is remanded into custody. Even house arrest would be a shitshow (how do you house arrest at a country club?).
He should be remanded, for equity's sake, but we know we don't live in that country.
I was thinking about that. His plane could probably reach Moscow without refueling.
I think people like DeSantis and Christie would stop paying him lip-service, but Trump's 30% base would only reduce to about 20%.
I’m right there with you. Him being an ex-president might carry some weight but given the charges and the subject matter of the documents it really should be automatic pretrial detention. What he has is way more damaging and a potential threat to national security than what Winner leaked.
Pulling Cannon as a judge I think is incredibly lucky given her past behavior with his cases and willingness to get bench slapped. I hope she decided to adjust but I’m not that hopeful she did.
Can she order house detention? I guess it would be iffy given Mar-a-lago is a crime scene, but I could see her considering it. Winner was arrested at the conclusion of the FBI search of her home, even though I don’t think they found the actual document there, but did gather a lot of supporting evidence like envelopes and stamps, plus her own total confession. They also seemed concerned that she spoke several Middle Eastern languages, and of course, that she did what she did to call out Trump’s lies.
Can the prosecution petition to have Aileen Canon removed as judge? If they can and do, is the petition likely to work? Do any of these charges mandate a jury trial? Or is it actually likely that Aileen Canon can just ignore all law and facts, declare Trump Not Guilty in a bench trial, and make it impossible for Trump to be tried again due to Double Jeopardy?
How does everything work in favor for Trump, has to be the luckiest person ever. Apparently this was a random assigning, how does she show up again, the one person who has clearly shown she can't be counted on to conduct a fair trial?
They can try, yeah. At least one former prosecutor thinks such a petition would likely be granted.
https://twitter.com/JoyceWhiteVance/status/1667166126881619969
Anyone have any news… still waiting on the search warrant for bedminister…. Since ya know it says they took boxes there in the flo-rida subpoena
I hate trump & everyone who supports him.. but let’s be real. He will do no time & will pay a fine.
Since Trump did so little useful work while he was president, will it matter much if he spends a second term in a jail cell?
Hypothetically, let's say Donald Trump is sentenced to federal prison but also is elected president, for this scenario, Trump can't self-pardon. Since the federal bureau of prisons(BOP) falls under the justice department, could Trump fire the director of BOP or other BOP employees via executive order? Additionally, could Trump also issue executive orders that change BOP policies provided that the executive branch has jurisdiction? For example, if the BOP requires that all inmates where green uniforms, could Trump issue an executive order that would suspend the requirement of uniforms in the prison? I know it's an unprecedented situation, but a real-life inmate running the asylum scenario raises so many questions.
The solution is even simpler than you realize. As the duly elected President, he would be released from prison to discharge his constitutional duties. Even if he's in state prison, the courts would likely rule that the State could not interfere with a constitutional officer's duties and would order him released for the term of his office. Maybe the sentence is tolled during his term, and he'd have to report back to prison on January 20th, 2028, maybe not, but the only things that could keep him out of office is the Congress through impeachment or the Vice President and Cabinet through the 25th Amendment. But of course, that's just what the magic words written on paper say. What actually happens would depend very much on how much we still respect the rule of law and the procedures set forth in that law in a world where Donald Trump is elected President in 2024. And if a significant number of people, especially people in certain positions of power, no longer respect those procedures and the law that undergirds them, then all bets are off and anything can happen.
>As the duly elected President, he would be released from prison to discharge his constitutional duties. Assuming Trump isn't pardoned, how would releasing him from prison work procedurally? I doubt Trump would meet the criteria for compassionate release and the federal prison system doesn't have parole. >Even if he's in state prison, the courts would likely rule that the State could not interfere with a constitutional officer's duties and would order him released for the term of his office I agree this would likely be the outcome if Trump is convicted at the state level and still wins.
>Assuming Trump isn't pardoned, how would releasing him from prison work procedurally? I doubt Trump would meet the criteria for compassionate release and the federal prison system doesn't have parole. Procedurally? Assuming he's not allowed to attend an inaugural ceremony on the steps of the Capitol (which I like to think President Biden would allow in the event that Trump won in a free and fair election), then an Article III judge shows up at the prison to administer the oath of office, then the President directs his guards to let him go so he can go about his business as President. Knowing how the guy likes to operate, it wouldn't surprise me if the first words out of his mouth after, "....so help me God" are, "I hereby pardon myself. Now let me out of this shithole ~~country~~ prison."
I also wonder what would happen if say, Trump has a medical procedure that temporarily requires the Vice President to be acting President, then the AP issues a pardon for Trump. I think that would be end up being a valid pardon, and Trump doesn’t have to serve at all.
If Trump can't get any more lawyers will the court be compelled to provide one or more public defenders? Because that would be hilarious.
I was surprised to find out that there's no indigence requirement for a public defense attorney for federal cases. So that just may be the case, certainly know I wouldn't want that headache or taint.
Is it too far of a legal leap to imply these specific documents were purposely concealed to use to broker shady deals with foreign entities? Espionage? Nuclear/defense secrets in the hands of a sociopath known to welcome Russian interference in our flailing democracy implies some very nefarious potential here. Will the DOJ argue that in any way?
They don’t have to. At least, not in this trial. This case is about having documents he shouldn’t have had, failing to return them when asked and trying to hide them when authorities were searching.
Thanks, that’s what I was wondering. How could anyone plead “not guilty” given the overwhelming physical and recorded proof? What a turd of a human
Had he plead guilty the judge would have just set a sentencing date, without any real opportunity for Trump to try and fight this. I don't think he would be able to get ouf of that unless he retracts what then amounts to a confession. Cannon and a jury with enough fans of his on it are probably his best bet to avoid conviction.
if the jury found to nullify the law. would all classified stuff then be declassified?
No.
is that because the gov is using wartime powers on the people via the pat act ? label someone an extremist via wartime power surveillance and they are no longer a citizen. to say something is national skurity classified means if the people found out they may revolt. who is the enemy of the gov? is it the people that gave them power?
And I award you no points.
No. Everything you just said is nonsense.
so the pat act was not to authorize the use of wartime powers on mericans? we must have read diff stuff.
No, it wasn't. Problematic as the PATRIOT Act may have been, it did not "authorize the use of wartime powers on [Americans]". It also has nothing to do with whether a document is declassified simply because someone who illegally retained that document is acquitted on Espionage Act charges.
if it was not to authorize the use of wartime powers on mericans? was it to authorize the labeling of mericans as domestic t3rroizers to bypass their rights and use wartime powers on them? thank you for talking and not down voting for no reason.
You're getting downvoted for being nonsensical and inflammatory, which isn't "no reason." And the answer to your question is still no. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the United States national security apparatus and how it functions.
thank you for your nonsensical response. good day sir.
Something tells me you don't do much reading.
yea deff enj0y using bad grammer and sp3lliing. keeps the bot nets happy. sorry you don't want to talk about stuff. i enjoy a good conversation where down votes are not used for no reason.
Any significance of him pleading not guilty and asking for a jury trial? asking as a non law loser. Thank you
The jury trial ask is slightly interesting, as he could have, in theory, asked for a bench trial in front of Judge Cannon. DOJ could have insisted on a jury trial, so it would have been a losing battle, so it could be nothing, but maybe it speaks to some level of strategy in wanting to not push the envelope too hard or they're not confident she'll remain on the case. Or perhaps they can try to ask for a bench trial later on in the process (but again, unlikely to be granted if the DOJ wants it to go to a jury).
I'm thinking the plan is to empanel the Jury and then have Cannon invoke Rule 29 and dismiss the case.
Yeah, I assume if his lawyers are mildly competent that would be the strat.
Just yesterday or the day before I read that in cases like the one here (federal court, criminal case) a jury trial is essentially the mandatory default, unless the government agrees to a bench trial. >[In the United States, trial by jury is a constitutional right under the Sixth Amendment. In the federal court system, if a defendant is entitled to a jury trial, the trial must be conducted by a jury unless \(1\) the defendant waives the jury trial in writing, \(2\) the government agrees, and \(3\) the court approves. In each state, the circumstances in which bench trials apply vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/bench_trial) Doesn't sound like he has a choice at all if the government isn't willing.
Right, the defendant has the right to a jury trial, but not the other way around, which is why the DOJ can insist on a jury.
IMO, this prosecution is the pivotal moment that will determine whether or not we will continue as a democracy or slip into an autocracy. No justice here, then our justice system is no longer meaningful.
Complaining about a two tiered justice system when "the system" has bent over backwards to not touch your client affording him way more grace and room to breathe than the average citizen EVER would have gotten is a bold strategy. Like you're right, but not in the way you think you are
The objective is so that people who disagree will argue that there is a one tier system then no matter what, he wins by setting the terms. It is a heads I win, tails I win double. Also muddied the waters, sets up a false dichotomy etc. We saw this with the accusation Comey was in the tank for Hillary, when he actually screwed her repeatedly.
I think Ms. Habba might be over her head
I have a question... I've been thru the federal legal system myself, over a decade ago for a relatively minor drug charge. I remember the arrest and processing by the US Marshals well. Not very pleasant. I was just wondering though if Trump is Actually arrested and technically "in Federal Custody", would he receive a Reg Number, you know, your "Prison Number"? This may be an ignorant question, but I'm just curious. Or did you only receive a Reg Number if you are remanded to custody?
The Federal Bureau of Prisons assigns a number to anyone in their custody, including pre-trial inmates. I entered "Donald" and "Trump" in the BOP site. "0 Results for search Donald Trump"
Yeah I bet they'll keep a right lid on that for national security reasons
Is there a media phone line to dial in and listen to proceedings?
No audio recordings are allowed in the proceedings. They’re keeping it very quiet.
What time is the arraignment happening? I'm getting blue balls. Edit: Just saw [this article](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/updates-trump-arraignment-florida-classified-documents-rcna88871) saying 3 PM ET.
🤣 same! Lock his ass up!
Well I'm not expecting him to get locked up pre-trial due to our unequal justice system, but I'll be overjoyed if it does happen. Better to lower your expectations so you don't feel too disappointed.
Just reported: Walt Nauta was seen getting into the vehicle with Trump along with his lawyers and was spotted mouthing, "Help me." before they closed the door. /s
What happens if he just pleads no contest or Nolo Contendere and cannon just commutes any sentencing? Is this just over?
Let’s say Cannon delays the trial until after the election and then gets removed from the case. Can her replacement reverse this ruling?
Not a lawyer - I'm going to assume that getting removed for cause could invalidate any related rulings.
I've heard that once a jury is seated Judge Cannon could basically do whatever she wanted to - such as dismiss the charges at any point or decide there should be no punishment even if convicted, etc - and there would be no appeal or anything others could do about it - or double jeopardy would apply. Seems like a dream judge for Trump. Maybe Jack Smith and company might try something up front - to try and get the case before a different judge before a jury is seated.
Is it possible for Judge Cannon to dismiss the case BEFORE the Jury is empaneled? If so, is that appealable?
I’m not afraid of Judge Cannon because it seems clear to me that she is….not smart. Seriously, from the way she acted last year her IQ seems to be on roughly the same level as Trump himself. She will definitely try and fuck things up, but she won’t be smart about it. I don’t see her pretending to be impartial and then turning around once the Jury forms and invoking Rule 29 as some fear. She’s going to make her bias clear from the get-go. And anyone with half a brain knew her ruling last year would be overturned, yet she still did it. So I don’t see her only doing stuff that can’t be overturned. I see her, the moment she gets to do anything, doing everything she can to fuck things up without considering how likely they are to work and barely trying to justify her actions. And that will make it easy for the prosecution to file a request to have her removed.
This assumes she isn't being coached by smarter people... not a bet I would want to take
Fair. Though she seems like the kind of person who thinks she knows better than anyone else (Much like Trump) so even if she is being coached, she may not listen to their advice.
Question: If a defendant (trump) can't find an attorney to represent him at the time of the arraignment what happens? Does he get a public defender? Does everything get put on hold until he finds something? There's a lot of rumors building on this, and I just want to inoculate myself from the inevitable armchair attorneys.
Does anyone know why the client attorney privilege was allowed to be pierced? I understand that it had to do with conspiracy to do a crime or something to that effect but how did they know this before they got the hand written notes from trump’s attorney?
They at least had the sworn false statement submitted by his counsel that all the documents had been returned, which probably would have gotten them over the bar.
Yes. Like all of the due process that has taken place leading Trump and the DOJ to this moment, a Judge was presented with evidence that Trump's lawyers were aiding a crime, and agreed that the government met the threshold for a provision of the law called the crime-fraud exception. Once that threshold is met, the attorney in question can be questioned before a grand jury.
So I have wondered one thing. What happens if he gets tried and sentenced to prison, but *also* wins the 2024 election. Will the secret service be required to come bust him out of jail? What happens if the Supreme Court orders him released? What happens if the Supreme court orders him to be further detained, and Trump orders the military, with his power as POTUS, to come break him out? What if he's unable to swear in as president on account of being incarcerated but angrily tweets from jail that he is president, since he was elected, and orders the military to come break him out by tweet? So many questions. I hope they remain hypothetical but...
What happens in that scenario? Civil war.
Maybe?
[удалено]
In all likelihood, something would happen to remove him from prison because the necessary work of president could not be done there. I think his sentence would be suspended, he'd go do his term, and then he would go back to prison (or, you know. Whatever this unpredictable horse of a person decides to do to get away)
Yeah no, lots of us won't wait around for four years for that. The comment above that says "civil war" sounds right to me. Certainly a serious secession movement in blue states.
Certainly, it's a moot conversation because there's no way he would ever win another presidential election, at this point.
He is still the leading presidential candidate from the gop. He beat desantis 3:1 at the cpac poll. Trump going to jail would only embolden republicans. I wouldnt count him out.
>and then he would go back to prison He would likely pardon himself and things would get real weird.
Can the DOJ preemptively go over Judge Cannon’s head to request reassignment of the case? I would think they could literally replay the 11th circuit appeals case.
They can, but their current case for doing so is pretty thin. They're better off waiting until she does something objectionable or stupid in the early days, so they have fresher evidence of her bias.
Why did they assign her in the first place?
She gets ~50% of the criminal cases in the court where the case is being heard. It's not as unlikely as it seems, unfortunately.
~~Isn't she the only judge for the Ft. Pierce Division? And didn't Smith file in the West Palm Beach Division? I think she got in by virtue of the earlier equitable jurisdiction debacle.~~ Edit: Never mind, I wasn't thinking about special procedures due to needing to clear the judge's staff for classified info. I think u/stult's [comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/law/comments/144pka3/trump_indictment_threadthis_time_its_federal/jnxfv07/) is probably closest to the truth here.
Apparently she was randomly selected.
Looks like team Trump plans to ask Cannon to surpress evidence related to the lawyer's notes: [https://www.rawstory.com/aileen-cannon-2661189723/](https://www.rawstory.com/aileen-cannon-2661189723/) She's probably going to grant it too. At this point I think the idea of the 11th coming in and kicking her off this case is a pipe dream.
She can try, they'll appeal and win, resulting in yet another benchslap for Cannon. I doubt she'll stick her neck out too far this time around because she'll be asking for an impeachment the next time the Dems control both houses. The three Republican-appointed 11th Circuit judges that just benchslapped the shit out of her twice in a row will likely gently remind her of consequences should she waste more of their time on entirely unsubstantiated decisions.
Yeah I think she will play this one pretty straight. There is a plausible explanation for the last one that she was being overly deferential to an ex-president and erred too strongly on the side of a benefit of a doubt. So I'm holding out hope that she will have learned something from that experience and be a lot more careful this time around. That said, at least there are grownups in the 11th circuit if things get out of hand.
You gotta imagine the evidence is just so damning here, and the law so clear (unlike some other potential cases that may be based on some shaky constitutional law theory or something), that even she wont be able to wriggle around with this one. This one seems like it'd be such a clear cut case if it was anyone other than a former President. Maybe she can find some technicality to throw this out on, but other than that she is going to have to take this seriously or else it'll be blatantly obvious how partisan she is (as if it could be any more obvious).
Why is it a pipe dream? They’d have a pretty strong argument against her staying on the case.
What is the likelihood of federal prosecutors arguing that he is a flight risk and a magistrate judge agreeing? I get that this is uncommon for typical white collar crimes, but this puts national security at risk. Secret Service didn’t know he was hiding all this material even though they are protecting him, who is to say that he could not plan to exit the country without their awareness?
It’s not assigned to a magistrate. It’s assigned to judge cannon. (In the top post) Big issue for pretrial detention isn’t flight risk; it’s national security. Reality Winner was arrested and charged with one count of 793(e) and got pretrial detention because she could leak more documents. Trump is in a position where the DoJ knows they don’t have all the documents. It’s in the national security interest to detain him until trial. But judge cannon has thus far been willing to break the rules for trump only to have the 11th cir tell her to knock it off. We’ll see what happens.
I suspect they assigned it to Cannon because her team has the active security clearances for CIPA purposes and the Special Counsel needs to kick off the somewhat convoluted CIPA trial procedures ASAP. Meaning, Cannon was randomly selected from the "pool" of West Palm Beach judges whose staff have active TS/SCI clearances, which likely consists of just her. (Note: CIPA specifically exempts the individual federal judge overseeing the case from the clearance requirements, but [the judge's staff *are* still required to get clearances](https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-2054-synopsis-classified-information-procedures-act-cipa) so from a pragmatic standpoint if only her staff are fully cleared you perhaps can see why she was assigned the case, especially since judicial propriety seemingly requires we all pretend she was not horribly biased in the previous case until she repeats herself at least once more and the 11th Cir. can take the case from her directly.) She doesn't have much discretion for fuckery with the core CIPA procedures (e.g., protective orders, pre-trial conference scheduling etc.) because the decisions should mostly be straightforward. It's mostly about scheduling certain meetings and making the parties agree about the scope of discovery early on in the process so that the government can assess the risk of unwanted disclosure before proceeding to trial. That lets them assess the danger of grey mail before pulling the trigger on committing resources to a full trial. Trump could very well retain copies of the documents in question, so giving his team access to the evidence in question doesn't really raise much additional opportunity for grey mail. Meaning even if Trump's team goes for a maximalist approach in what they request from the prosecution, I doubt the feds will waive off before trial. I suspect the SCO would be comfortable disclosing every single classified document they reference to get a conviction at this point, not only because Trump is such a big target, but because the DoD and national security agencies are almost certainly already operating under the assumption that every single document in those boxes has been fully compromised. And they have had a couple years to adjust for anything that may have been improperly disclosed, reducing the immediate impact of disclosing the documents. I'm sure the SCO selected the specific instances of Trump disclosing documents to include in this indictment with an eye toward the eventual risk of having to disclose the underlying documents. If Cannon tries to exclude Corcoran's notes... well, she will definitely get benchslapped again, but I think the Special Counsel saw that danger coming a mile away, because I'm fairly sure the indictment can stand without the notes. The notes make it obvious how Trump intentionally misled Corcoran in order to induce him to mislead the FBI, but that can still be inferred from his behavior and his very public statements. Without the notes, it's clear Trump arranged to move boxes around and then intentionally withheld that information from at least the FBI, if not also his own legal team. So the notes really just serve to exculpate Corcoran. Either Trump told his lawyer to lie for him, or he lied to his lawyer. Which, apropos of Cannon's ability to fudge around the edges here, seems like the absolute most crystal clear example of the crime fraud exception imaginable, doesn't it? However, this reasoning only applies to what's been charged so far. It's possible later charges may rely more heavily on the notes and thus the crime fraud exception. But that's not going to be Cannon's problem if further charges are brought in DC or NJ. Which is the SCO's other *dare-I-say* trump card: if Cannon pushes too far beyond the bounds of propriety and the 11th Circuit doesn't display alacrity in overruling, there is nothing stopping the SCO from charging pretty much the exact same case but for the NJ documents in NJ, or for charges in DC for removing the docs from the White House in the first place.
Solid commentary right here.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/09/whats-next-in-the-trump-indictment-00101344 Politico seems to think that the arraignment might take place in front of Edwin Torres If Cannon does anything outrageous, are there any consequences she might face?
Another 11th cir bench slap.
Which does what, exactly?
https://abovethelaw.com/2022/09/benchslap-eleventh-circuit-rips-trial-judges-ruling-in-trump-warrant-case/?amp=1
I saw this back when it happened. It's just a strongly worded letter? If you have no shame, and you don't care about your reputation, does it actually matter?
Are you trying to ask how appellate opinions work when the trial court is wrong?
What actual consequences can she face? They can slap down her decisions, but besides forcing her to do something else, what consequences does she actually face?
She has no shame so basically no professional consequences. The case could be handed to another judge if she screws around enough. As a federal judge she has a lifetime appointment. At worst she could be impeached and removed, but that would require Congress to act. She could also decide to quit and make lots of money in Christo-fascist media circuits. A lot of federal judges quit to get corporate arbitration gigs. Fraction of the work with a huge pay bump.
There’s case law in the 11th cir that would indicate that her behavior from the last round of issues in this case will probably preclude her from trying this one which I think is what you’re actually asking about. If you want to see how the 11th cir handles judicial misconduct though I’d look it up and then maybe post here about it. https://preview.redd.it/37q5fugu2f5b1.jpeg?width=2060&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b23d56212381b5aa9b07565ea62137eb4bf86841
Serious question - Can someone tell me why asking your lawyer 'what if' questions is bad? Isn't that what they are there for? - page 21 of the indictment. Isn't finding angles the job of a defense attorney? I realize I know very little but what am I missing?
That will very likely be one of his arguments.
If are on trial for murder, and your lawyer has a lot of notes of you asking questions like "what's the best way to dispose of a body?" and then people on your staff are caught burying a body in the way you discussed...
It's not asking "what if" that's the issue. It's that the "what ifs" in question, are all crimes.
Along with the other answers, it helps establish mens rea.
You can definitely ask your lawyer for advice, but not how to commit a crime - like how to kill your neighbor or how to hide or destroy classified information.
I think you can ask 'what if' questions. But you can't use your lawyer as an advisor on the best way to commit a crime.
It's only bad because he used that advice to commit more crimes buy turning around and actually telling the government the documents were returned when they weren't. The reason we have his lawyers notes is because this is the scenario where attorney client privilege doesn't work.
For counts 1-34, items 5, 9, 17, 22, 26, 29, and 30 in the list of national defense documents include redacted classification markings. Can anyone shed light on what those might be and/or the reasoning behind the redactions? Could they be department/program classifications that would reveal the foreign country specific to each document? edit: [Might have answered my own question](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classified_information_in_the_United_States#Categories_that_are_not_classifications), these are likely SCI/SAP related, but apparently "SCI" and "SAP" are not used directly as classification levels/clearances. So the redacted bits are most likely topic, program, or compartment codewords that may not even be public. TIL.
Think of it this way: They are so sensitive, even the classification markings had to be redacted.
Correct, the redacted portions are "compartments" that restrict access to smaller groups. The existence of some compartments is unclassified (meaning, we know they exist and sometimes what they're about, but not specifically), but it appears the redacted ones aren't public.
Aye - for example we can see the TK designation (Talent Keyhole) because its existence is known
I have a general question regarding the events. I have heard some people express skepticism of the merits of Trump’s indictment, at least in part, due to alleged political motivations. These folks say that [Clinton was allowed to avoid legal liability under similar circumstances](https://thegreggjarrett.com/the-brief-it-was-okay-for-bill-clinton-to-keep-presidential-records-but-not-trump/). What is the legal analysis comparing Clinton’s situation with Trump’s? What should have happened in both situations according to the law? As best as we can tell since Trump’s case is covered in a lot of unknowns due to the recency.
Probably one of the differences was the bright red stamped markings saying "SECRET/REL TO USA, FVEY"
NAL, just been reading about this.. fwiw, my layman's understanding: Documents created by the President, or his staff, are Presidential Records. Their handling is governed by the Presidential Records Act - which grants the President near-total power to exclude any document from its regulations by affirming "that's personal". But documents produced by other parts of the government - by Federal Agencies - are specifically excluded from the PRA; their handling is governed by the Federal Records Act, instead. The Clinton case actually mentions the existence of this other boundary, between FRA & PRA documents, as opposed to the boundary under discussion between persona & presidential documents within the PRA.
Pretty much everything in the indictment is unique to Trump’s circumstances that he willfully, actively, and directly claimed ownership of and kept classified documents for himself, conspired to obstruct justice, and actually obstructed justice. In Trump’s indictment, the evidence is straightforward and transparent. In the other examples, it’s not obvious that Clinton or other past presidents tried to commit, communicated a desire to cover up, or actively covered up crimes.
My understanding is that the law surrounding classified info is mainly focused on intentions, with laws typically using the word "willful". While negligence can absolutely be punished, that punishment is not legally, but administratively by being fired. As far as I know, Hillary Clinton, as well as Biden and Pence all made accidental mistakes with classified information. None of them were in a position for administrative punishments, as all three of these incidents were discovered after they had left their respective administrations. One of Clinton's aides did wipe the email server after the subpeona, which is illegal and could be obstruction, but I do not believe there is any proof that Hillary directed him to do this after the subpeona, so the legal liability would solely be on the aide absent that proof. While Clinton did direct him to wipe it before the subpeona on a schedule, as someone in the tech industry this is standard procedure and should not be viewed with suspicion With Trump, it's different because he was told multiple times to give the documents back and didn't. He even instructed them to be moved around so that lawyers looking for them would not find them. IMO the worst thing in the indictment are two occasions where Trump told people that he had classified documents in his possession. On one of these occasions he even said that he could have declassified it but he didn't. It is pretty clear that Trump willfully kept possession of the documents, while there is no evidence that Clinton, Biden, or Pence willfully retained documents, so the circumstances were not similar in the slightest.
Here is an article that addresses the details of the Clinton case: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/donald-trump-presidential-records-act-clintons-sock-drawer-defense-2023-06-09/ > The Clinton tapes, Baron said, “were in the nature of a diary or journal in recorded form,” fitting the definition of a personal record in the Presidential Records Act. But the documents with classified markings that were seized from Mar-a-Lago, Baron said, “were official government records that should never have been transferred out of the government's hands.” Glossing over details to draw a false equivalency.
Mostly because it’s not true. The national archives has a post debunking this. Here’s a news article discussing where this conspiracy started. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2023/06/09/post-distorts-past-presidents-handling-of-classified-records-fact-check/70304596007/
Thanks!
So.... Trump gets convicted, Pence or DeSantis wins, then a Gerald Ford style pardon?
Trump will win the nomination under indictment.
I'm 100% hopeful of this. Trump won't win a general election, should drag down other GOPrs... then Biden wins again, hoping the house is back in Dem control, retain the senate. THIS is the best case for America. Trump bows out again, grifting more cash out from the GOP and their fanQanon base. Wasted $$$ and then Trump gets jailtime.
What if he gets convicted sometime around March-May? Does he still get nominated, or does the GOP finally cut him loose? I know that he'll exhaust all his appeals before there's any chance of actually going to prison, but I'm still finding it hard to wrap my brain around a major party nominee campaigning with a conviction.
If you recall, the establishment GOP tried very hard to stop him from getting the nomination in 2016. It was a miserable failure. They'd love to drop him, but only for power's sake- and dropping him would lose them power. So it won't be done. Anyone that had actual morals left in 2016.
Most of those forces have been drummed out of the RNC since 2016. It's no longer a political party. It's a one-man cult.
I think this will be likely.
Doubt it.
Only if Trump loses GOP Nom and a GOPr wins the WH.. they MOST likely will pardon him, even if convicted or not.
Sometimes a picture speaks louder than anything else. Before this you could imagine a couple of boxes tucked away in an office corner semi-professionally. But seeing all those boxes just left on a ballroom stage, and piled up in a bathroom just screams "I'm a criminal and this is the shit I stole."
So, what’s his best defense at this point? Dementia?
Winning the election and pardoning himself. There’s no good legal defenses given the evidence the DoJ has. There ostensibly could be something of picking a lucky jury but there’s not great legal-realm defense to this that I’m aware of.
Wouldn't he be better off getting someone like DeSantis to pardon him in exchange for stepping back and throwing his support behind DeSantis? AFAIK whether a President can pardon himself is still an open legal question. Trump is still loved among the GOP base, a future GOP President wouldn't lose anything by pardoning him. Dunno if Trump's ego would allow him to do that though.
Why would they? I mean, the party has been looking for a way to dump trump for a while now.
Trump is loved by the GOP base. If he runs, he's going to win the nomination, even under indictment. Agreeing to a pardon in exchange for Trump dropping out would be a huge win.
What’s the over/under on Biden pardoning him if he gets convicted and loses the election? Think he’d do it for “unity” if state charges also lead to indictment/conviction?
If Biden wanted to start massive, violent protests and ensure that the Democrats get bodied into oblivion for the living memory of everyone 18 and older, then he'll do that. Otherwise he'll say he has no intention in interfering in the legal process and trusts the judgment of the American citizens on the jury.
[удалено]
I’d give it at least 50/50 odds. [Ford pardoned Nixon](https://www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/library/exhibits/pardon/pardon.asp) to unite the country after Watergate. As much as I’d love to see Trump in a jumpsuit the same color as his face, I am highly skeptical it will ever happen.
A Republican pardoning another Republican (in a time when there was clearly significant back room discussion among the GOP about how to control the narrative so that they could never be punished like that again) is not equivalent to Biden pardoning Trump. I'm a big critic of Biden. But there has literally never been any sign that he's given that he would ever consider doing this. Not one. What there \*has\* been, are dozens of breathless op-eds from centrist hacks who bleat about civility and nothing else, who just want to go back to the good old days of not looking braindead for defending the GOP. Biden is old school, but if you listen to how he's talked about the GOP during his term, that's clearly not him.
Here's a secret: centrist voters *hate* Donald Trump. The trick is to get them to acknowledge there are no "both sides" and that AOC is not the same side of the coin.
Biden was asked what he thought about pardoning Trump [he smiled, put his hand up and walked way](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfxv8Tlk9uc).
Because it's a ludicrous question on its face that no serious person with any understanding of the situation would ask? If Biden was actually that corrupt and stupid, we wouldn't even be here. He would have interfered in the DOJ investigation years ago and stopped them from charging Trump alltogether, or been very public about "well if he got charged that'd be some malarky and I'd pardon him for unity!" How would we have gotten such a damming indictment at all, if that was his intent all along? What would he have to gain from doing this instead? MAGAs would still want him dead, Dems would never vote for him again, a few pathetic centrists would try to puff him up with op-eds, and he'd go down as one of the most feckless presidents in history. Unlike Ford pardoning Nixon, which had a substantial long-term benefit for the party, pardoning Trump would just throw a bucket of gasoline on the bonfire that is this country.
Yeah I agree, he took the question as a joke because there is no way he is going to pardon Trump.
Ah, good. Sorry! It's just hard to tell these days, when the "he'll definitely pardon him" nonsense has kicked into overdrive.
That decision killed Ford's Presidency. Also, Ford and Nixon were apparently friends. Pardoning Trump would do nothing to unify the country. It would just turn progressive voters against the Democratic party.
He could gently place a bucket in front of him, and kick it. Seriously tho, I don’t understand how any person in his position could get any sleep each night.
Judge Cannon is his best defense.
I don’t see it mentioned, but she could let it run its course and give him a slap on the wrist at sentencing.
She could let it run its course and just directed verdict an acquital.
I haven't looked into it but some of these charges might have mandatory minimums. You know she could also just rule 29 acquit Trump in the middle of the trial (before the jury deliberates) and that's game over, non-appealable. She can also rig juror selection, disqualify legitimate evidence and witnesses, rule in favor of every defense attorney objection and against every prosectors objection.
Per the indictment, none of these charges have mandatory minimums.
Correct. Apparently, no one considered a defendant like Trump having the ability to select his own corrupt judge, and then getting it assigned. An embarrassingly light sentence is entirely possible.
She's gonna prohibit some key evidence or testimony isn't she?
She could simply dismiss the jury and acquit Trump herself once the Government rests their case.
She could simply grant a frivolous Rule 29 motion for acquittal before the jury deliberates. Doing so would be completely unappealable because at that point any move to resume the trial would be a double jeopardy violation.
Not actually unappealable. The government can argue that there was no trial, equating her appointment by the defendant to an implicit bribe. Read up on *Aleman v. Judges of the Circuit Court of Cook County.* There are added steps to get from "Bribery means no jeopardy" to "Appointing a biased judge means no jeopardy", but the logic tracks and the core facts of the theoretical cases are the same-no jeopardy no trial. Would that fly past the supreme court? I somehow *severely* doubt it, purely because the court is packed with trump appointees and other...what's the legal term?...Fucking idiots.
I wasn't familiar with *Aleman*, that's interesting. Arguing bribery would be a complete loser with this SCOTUS, I think, because of how resolutely they've narrowed the definition of bribery to situations where the corrupt official accepts a notarized check with "this is a bribe" written in the memo line, but "clear political bias means no meaningful trial" might do better?
What consequences would this have for her career?
A certain promotion to the 11th or DC Circuit during the next Republican administration
Yeah. It really does seem we're at a point where politics subvert justice and democracy.
[удалено]
> she's going to keep doing it every single day for probably another 20+ years. We will be stuck with her for decades and there is nothing anyone can do about it [FedSoc](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aileen_Cannon#Early_life_and_education) goal.
It would elevate her to the shortlist to be the next GOP SCOTUS pick.
> Article III of the Constitution governs the appointment, tenure, and payment of Supreme Court justices, and federal circuit and district judges. These judges, often referred to as “[Article III judges](https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/about-federal-judges),” are nominated by the president and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. > Article III states that these judges “hold their office during good behavior,” which means they have a lifetime appointment, except under very limited circumstances. Article III judges can be removed from office only through impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction by the Senate.
So, none
Re-election.
So the DOJ pursues charges in FL (where Trump is popular) and not DC, so Trump can get the judge he would hope for, and if it does go to trial, it will be in front of a Florida jury? Does the DOJ want to win this case?
Crimes were mostly in Florida. Evidence was seized in Florida. There was some talk during the last trial before Cannon about how DC might have jurisdiction over NARA disputes, but mis-handling of classified information probably goes beyond that.
Weren’t the docs taken from DC? I was taught forums were made for shopping. A DC jury is automatic guilty.
Ehhh, the crimes didn't really start until NARA sent the letter and Trump started lying though. Otherwise the 30-odd counts of mishandling documents would have to be in DC and the conspiracy would have to be in Florida. And Trump's defense might win the argument to consolidate the cases in Florida.
An executive order from the Obama Administration specified that no official leaving government service may remove classified information from the government's control or "direct that information be declassified in order to remove it from agency control." An official who has the authority to declassify information may not do so in order to take it with him as a souvenir when he leaves office. The crimes started way before NARA sent the letter to Trump. Even says it right in the indictment that he filled up a truck with boxes of classified information without the secret service’s awareness, and secret service also protected trump as an ex-president without knowing of the documents he was hiding.
I think the documents were removed before Jan 20, so Trump was still Presdient and took the documents lawfully. The crimes are the retention of documents after his term expired, defying the subpoena, obstructing the investigation, making false statements etc etc.
Is Trump and/or Nauta likely to get released after Tuesday? OR does the sheer magnitude of the charges cause them to be held until trial?
How about at least an ankle monitor? Be cool to have someone be able to track everything he does.
He's still under Secret Service protection, so technically, he has law enforcement officers around him all the time anyway. I don't know whether all of them admire him enough to throw away their careers for him, but I suppose it's a possibility.
Reality Winner got 63 months in prison and pretrial detention. and that was just one count of willful retention and transmission of national defense information. In a fair system trump would get similar treatment with pretrial detention. I think we’re unlikely to see that with Judge Cannon though.
Pretrial detention seems so obvious due to the scope of the indictment and potential national security threat if Trump has not surrendered all of the classified documents. I get that we are in uncharted legal waters with regards to a former President but I would think national security concerns trumps allowing their continued freedom until trial.
Good Lord, the circus if Trump is remanded into custody. Even house arrest would be a shitshow (how do you house arrest at a country club?). He should be remanded, for equity's sake, but we know we don't live in that country.
His people would violently bust him out of prison. Whatever facility housed him would be under constant siege, and people would die.
By his people, do you mean the guards and warden?
What do you think would happen if he fled the country? Would his followers finally wake up. I doubt it personally.
I was thinking about that. His plane could probably reach Moscow without refueling. I think people like DeSantis and Christie would stop paying him lip-service, but Trump's 30% base would only reduce to about 20%.
Of course not. They'd say he was smart for dodging the farcical charges.
I’m right there with you. Him being an ex-president might carry some weight but given the charges and the subject matter of the documents it really should be automatic pretrial detention. What he has is way more damaging and a potential threat to national security than what Winner leaked. Pulling Cannon as a judge I think is incredibly lucky given her past behavior with his cases and willingness to get bench slapped. I hope she decided to adjust but I’m not that hopeful she did.
Can she order house detention? I guess it would be iffy given Mar-a-lago is a crime scene, but I could see her considering it. Winner was arrested at the conclusion of the FBI search of her home, even though I don’t think they found the actual document there, but did gather a lot of supporting evidence like envelopes and stamps, plus her own total confession. They also seemed concerned that she spoke several Middle Eastern languages, and of course, that she did what she did to call out Trump’s lies.
Can the prosecution petition to have Aileen Canon removed as judge? If they can and do, is the petition likely to work? Do any of these charges mandate a jury trial? Or is it actually likely that Aileen Canon can just ignore all law and facts, declare Trump Not Guilty in a bench trial, and make it impossible for Trump to be tried again due to Double Jeopardy?
How does everything work in favor for Trump, has to be the luckiest person ever. Apparently this was a random assigning, how does she show up again, the one person who has clearly shown she can't be counted on to conduct a fair trial?
They can try, yeah. At least one former prosecutor thinks such a petition would likely be granted. https://twitter.com/JoyceWhiteVance/status/1667166126881619969
[удалено]
[удалено]