Jump to content

US politics - wheeling and dealing, avoiding debt ceiling


Recommended Posts

To be clear I am not talking about if he did it or not, @Zorral - I was talking about what he was being charged with, since the relevant conversation was about what penalties he'd suffer. i wasnt talking avout what he deserves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Kalnak the Magnificent said:

was talking about what he was being charged with, since the relevant conversation was about what penalties he'd suffer.

What?

Anyway I was talking about what he is and is not charged with as well.  What he is charged with deserves execution, just like the Sacklers' and Purdue's crusade to addict the population to opioids does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kalnak the Magnificent said:

To be clear I am not talking about if he did it or not, @Zorral - I was talking about what he was being charged with, since the relevant conversation was about what penalties he'd suffer. i wasnt talking avout what he deserves.

Pleadings can be amended as more evidence is gathered.  Don’t forget they may want a better venue for espionage charges if the actual transfer of information took place away from Florida.

I doubt this is done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I worry about with all these documents being stored in bathrooms, ballrooms and other unsecured areas is that how many were just plain stolen?  It is obvious Trump didn't have any kind of list or inventory on these items, so how could he tell if one or more were missing?  Nightmare, just a nightmare. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was watching CNN off and on last night and simply couldn’t believe some of the details with regard to the charges.

But most hilarious was the fact CNN dug up a series of shots from Trump campaign speeches where he says there should be no mercy shown to people who take confidential documents.

I have a question about the way the charges were announced, though. I had heard about 7 indictments while a friend swore she heard “37 charges”. I looked up the stories and all I saw was news about 7 indictments, then yesterday started seeing the stories about 37 charges. Are the charges listed under the 7 indictments? How does it work?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

I have a question about the way the charges were announced, though. I had heard about 7 indictments while a friend swore she heard “37 charges”. I looked up the stories and all I saw was news about 7 indictments, then yesterday started seeing the stories about 37 charges. Are the charges listed under the 7 indictments? How does it work?

He's being charged 31 times for one act and once for six others.  Here's a summary.

Quote
  • Willful retention of national defense information: This charge, covering counts 1-31, only applies to Trump and is for allegedly storing 31 such documents at Mar-a-Lago.
  • Conspiracy to obstruct justice: Trump and Nauta, along with others, are charged with conspiring to keep those documents from the grand jury.
  • Withholding a document or a record: Trump and Nauta are accused of misleading one of their attorneys by moving boxes of classified documents so the attorney could not find or introduce them to the grand jury.
  • Corruptly concealing a document or record: This pertains to the Trump and Nauta's alleged attempts to hide the boxes of classified documents from the attorney.
  • Concealing a document in a federal investigation: They are accused of hiding Trump's continued possession of those documents at Mar-a-Lago from the FBI and causing a false certificate to be submitted to the FBI.
  • Scheme to conceal: This is for the allegation that Trump and Nauta hid Trump's continued possession of those materials from the FBI and the grand jury.
  • False statements and representations: This count concerns statements that Trump allegedly caused another one of his attorneys to make to the FBI and grand jury in early June regarding the results of the search at Mar-a-Lago.
  • False statements and representations: This final count accuses Nauta of giving false answers during a voluntary interview with the FBI in late May.

https://www.npr.org/2023/06/09/1181340894/trump-indictment-classified-documents-charges

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know how all this works, but I did read the indictment.  Under the first indictment which deals with the documents, about 30 plus charges; each document is a charge.  Then there were several more indictments, 3 or 4 which mostly dealt with the other person charged, the MAL employee who moved the boxes around.   The indictments are found on the web, read them if you're interested, they are pretty wild.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, DMC said:

Missed this.  Trump not running absolutely would be a formal part of a plea deal, dunno what you're talking about here.  Prosecutors can absolutely make that part of any agreement, and they would.  When I was a kid and put on probation, my mom literally dictated who I legally wasn't allowed to hang out with.  Same thing happens with most organized crime parolees in terms of consorting with known felons.

Anyway, it's not about trust, it's formalized.

It turns out the answer is much more complicated than I (and you) had assumed: https://www.lawfareblog.com/not-panacea-trump-disqualification-and-plea-bargains

My assumption was that such a plea deal would be inappropriate because (i) withdrawal as a candidate is hardly within the purview of the Justice Department or a legitimate term of an argument; (ii) it would be politically toxic to even propose in this case (and remain so if Trump accepts the terms). 

Anyway, you are probably more in the right than I am, even though I continue to think such a term in a plea argument would be deeply constitutionally problematic.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

It turns out the answer is much more complicated than I (and you) had assumed: https://www.lawfareblog.com/not-panacea-trump-disqualification-and-plea-bargains

My assumption was that such a plea deal would be inappropriate because (i) withdrawal as a candidate is hardly within the purview of the Justice Department or a legitimate term of an argument; (ii) it would be politically toxic to even propose in this case (and remain so if Trump accepts the terms). 

Anyway, you are probably more in the right than I am, even though I continue to think such a term in a plea argument would be deeply constitutionally problematic.  

 

This assumes that Trumps ego will let him accept a plea deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

This assumes that Trumps ego will let him accept a plea deal.

True, this is a purely hypothetical convo.  Any plea deal will be politically humiliating and financially disadvantageous for Trump (certainly compared to a presidential pardon or acquittal).   A plea deal would be intended to avoid a prison term.  

7 hours ago, Kalnak the Magnificent said:

To be clear I am not talking about if he did it or not, @Zorral - I was talking about what he was being charged with, since the relevant conversation was about what penalties he'd suffer. i wasnt talking avout what he deserves.

I saw somewhere the total prison term in terms of the US Sentencing Guidelines is 420 years. 

I understand the temptation to say that Houdini isn't fucked because, you know, he's wriggled himself free many times.  But this time, legally (as opposed to politically) he is fucked.  His best hope is jury nullification by Trump supporters or a presidential pardon. 

Edited by Gaston de Foix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Zorral said:

Jack Teixeira, who posted classified documents in his Discord Gamers Room got arrested and is going to trial.  If the EviLe sob walks, then, why shouldn't this pos?

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2023/04/11/leaked-ukraine-documents-may-have-origin-chatroom-gamers.html

Because he's a poor white dude who doesn't have a lot of support out there. This really isn't hard to figure out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gaston de Foix said:

I saw somewhere the total prison term in terms of the US Sentencing Guidelines is 420 years. 

I understand the temptation to say that Houdini isn't fucked because, you know, he's wriggled himself free many times.  But this time, legally (as opposed to criminally) he is fucked.  His best hope is jury nullification by Trump supporters or a presidential pardon. 

And I think you're just talking out of your ass here. The total sentencing guidelines are never followed to that degree and are certainly going to not be done so when there's very little actual malicious behavior shown. Plus, again, it's a rich white dude. That ain't how our justice system works. 

I do agree that it is his most dangerous legal fight to date - largely because unlike his previous crimes his deciders are not the Republican senate. But there are just so many ways that he can get out of this without any major issue. Whether it be a plea deal or judge shenanigans or small issues with the case that gets something thrown out or the difficulties with showing classified information to a jury or in a trial, there are a lot of ways to get out. 

And there is going to be a LOT of pressure to get him out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gaston de Foix said:

I saw somewhere the total prison term in terms of the US Sentencing Guidelines is 420 years.

I assume that's all the maximum sentences added up. I don't know if they would be applied consecutively or concurrently, in trials I've followed, it was the judge's decision.

I'm not an expert, but it seems to me that maximum sentences are rarely given. I assume he is a 'first time offender' in the eyes of the law. Plus these offenses don't even carry a minimum sentence. And lastly, should the loose Cannon preside over the trial, wouldn't she do the sentencing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Kalnak the Magnificent said:

And I think you're just talking out of your ass here. The total sentencing guidelines are never followed to that degree and are certainly going to not be done so when there's very little actual malicious behavior shown. Plus, again, it's a rich white dude. That ain't how our justice system works. 

You are talking about maximum sentences not recommended sentences.  There's a big difference.  But we do have malicious behavior here: obstruction, lying, deception etc. etc.  What we don't have is treasonous behavior. 

27 minutes ago, Kalnak the Magnificent said:

I do agree that it is his most dangerous legal fight to date - largely because unlike his previous crimes his deciders are not the Republican senate. But there are just so many ways that he can get out of this without any major issue. Whether it be a plea deal or judge shenanigans or small issues with the case that gets something thrown out or the difficulties with showing classified information to a jury or in a trial, there are a lot of ways to get out. 

And there is going to be a LOT of pressure to get him out. 

A plea deal is a legit escape hatch. 

Judicial shenanigans will certainly occur (especially if Aileen Cannon is the trial judge) but will be geared towards (i) delay (which is a major Trump goal here anyway); (ii) procedural victories on disclosure etc.  There's no way she can dismiss this case ab initio, and if she does she'll get overturned by the 11th Circuit as she was previously.  

The classified information problem has been managed before and will be managed at this trial without too much difficulty. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Gaston de Foix said:

You are talking about maximum sentences not recommended sentences.  There's a big difference.  But we do have malicious behavior here: obstruction, lying, deception etc. etc.  What we don't have is treasonous behavior. 

That's not really what I mean. All of those things are bad, but they are not meant with actual malice or actual personal gain that can be prosecuted. 

Again, compare to Petraeus or Winner or other folks and it really isn't in the same league. While you might not agree with it the commenters that have looked at it have. 

Just now, Gaston de Foix said:

A plea deal is a legit escape hatch. 

Judicial shenanigans will certainly occur (especially if Aileen Cannon is the trial judge) but will be geared towards (i) delay (which is a major Trump goal here anyway); (ii) procedural victories on disclosure etc.  There's no way she can dismiss this case ab initio, and if she does she'll get overturned by the 11th Circuit as she was previously.  

The classified information problem has been managed before and will be managed at this trial without too much difficulty. 

The classified info problem has been managed in the past - but it takes a long time and has also resulted in cases thrown out. 

The judge in this case can actually throw things out and because this is a criminal proceeding cannot be overturned like the 11th circuit did. That's not how criminal trials work. 

Now, all that said I do think it should be prosecuted. And in a just system Trump would easily - EASILY - be found guilty. This is an absurd amount of hard evidence in addition to witness testimony and the defendant's own words and behavior. It is quite obviously a crime that he committed. But we don't have a very just system, especially when powerful white men are being charged, and I have no illusions that this will be Yet Another Case of Trump - and the Sacklers, and others - getting out of having any particular penalty applied to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...