Tag Archives: indictment

The Deposition of Jack Smith, Special Counsel

1 Reply

The House Judiciary Committee has released a 255-page transcript, as well as an 8 hour and 20-minute video, of its closed-door deposition with Jack Smith. Smith, you recall, was appointed by President Joe Biden to investigate and, if warranted, prosecute Donald Trump for his attempt to overthrow the 2020 election by violently preventing Congress from executing its responsibility to peacefully transfer the executive power on January 6, 2021. Smith’s work was inexplicably delayed by then Attorney General Merrick Garland so that, when Trump was elected the second time, all the prosecutions were stopped and eventually dropped entirely.

Thus, Donald Trump, once again, escaped justice.

On January 6 my wife and I watched on TV from our apartment at Pennsylvania Avenue and 24th Street NW in Washington in disbelief as the attack on the Capitol unfolded, arranged and spurred on by Donald Trump. Surely, we thought, this will be the end of Trump. This is simply a bridge too far. We were wrong. Today, the anniversary of the attack on the Capitol, is an appropriate time to review Jack Smith’s deposition.

You are not likely going to read the entire deposition transcript. I have done so in your place and excerpt it here. The version on which I have relied is reproduced at: https://thenationaldesk.com/news/americas-news-now/house-judiciary-committee-releases-255-page-transcript-of-jack-smiths-deposition-former-special-counsel-president-donald-trump-criminal-investigations-probes-prosecutions-classified-documents-2020-presidential-election-joe-biden.

I begin by noting that the Republican politicians who led the questioning were partisans, determined to exonerate Trump regardless of the evidence. The transcript thus begins with this:

Chairman Jordan has requested this deposition as part of the committee’s oversight of the Biden-Harris administration’s weaponization of the Justice Department and its misuse of Federal law enforcement resources for partisan political purposes.

You may recall that immediately upon taking office the second time, Trump pardoned all the hundreds of convicted people who attacked the Capitol on January 6. That action speaks for itself.

The deposition began with Mr. Smith’s counsel noting that the deposition was being conducted with Volume Two of the special counsel’s report withheld per demand of Donald Trump:

… that amounts to gagging Mr. Smith today and preventing him from telling this committee about his investigation into President’s Trump’s crimes. And, specifically, these crimes include stealing and lying about classified documents he kept in the ballrooms and bathrooms of his Mar-a-Lago clubhouse. And there is no reason at all to continue to keep Volume Two under seal — besides, of course, the fact that Mr. Trump doesn’t like what it says.

A second major limitation, in place at the behest of the Department of Justice, was described this way:

This morning, just over an hour ago, the Department of Justice sent us an email affirming its view that Judge Cannon’s order applies to Mr. Smith and that it precludes him from disclosing any nonpublic information that may be contained in Volume Two, including but not limited to interview transcripts, search warrant materials, business records, toll records, video footage, records obtained by grand jury subpoenas, attorney-client communications, and potential for Rule 404(b) evidence. This restriction significantly limits Mr. Smith’s ability to discuss the classified documents case.

My summary of the deposition must be read in light of these Republican-imposed restrictions obviously intended to protect Trump from incriminating disclosures. Further, despite an express invitation, the Department of Justice declined to have a staff attorney present during the deposition to facilitate the prompt resolution of any questions that might arise regarding the proper scope of questions asked.

Semi-finally, in keeping with Trump’s general approach to the January 6 and document theft issues, he publicly called for the arrest of the special counsel. It was noted on the record that,

Yesterday the President’s chief of staff is reported to have confirmed in interviews that the President is indeed pursuing criminal prosecutions against his perceived adversaries as part of a retribution campaign.

And, finally, to put to rest the slanting of the narrative by the media, Smith’s clear and unequivocal opening statement began with:

Our investigation developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the results of the 2020 election and to prevent the lawful transfer of power.

Our investigation also developed powerful evidence that showed that President Trump willfully retained highly classified documents after he left office in January of 2021, storing them at his social club, including in a ballroom and a bathroom. He then repeatedly tried to obstruct justice to conceal his continued retention of those documents….

The timing and speed of our work reflects the strength of the evidence and our confidence that we would have secured convictions at trial. If asked whether to prosecute a former President based on the same facts today, I would do so regardless of whether that President was a Republican or a Democrat.

And so on to the merits, as Republicans tried to frame the issue as one of infringing on Trump’s First Amendment rights to complain about the election outcome. Jack Smith speaks:

There is no historical analog for what President Trump did in this case. As we said in the indictment, he was free to say that he thought he won the election. He was even free to say falsely that he won the election. But what he was not free to do was violate Federal law and use knowing — knowingly false statements about election fraud to target a lawful government function. That he was not allowed to do. And that differentiates this case from any past history.

… the evidence here made clear that President Trump was by a large measure the most culpable and most responsible person in this conspiracy.  These crimes were committed for his benefit.   The attack that happened at the Capitol, part of this case, does not happen without him.  The other co-conspirators were doing this for his benefit.   So in terms of why we would pursue a case against him, I entirely disagree with any characterization that our work was in any way meant to hamper him in the Presidential election.

… our evidence is that he in the weeks leading up to January 6th created a level of distrust.  He used that level of distrust to get people to believe fraud claims that weren’t true.  He made false statements to State legislatures, to his supporters in all sorts of contexts and was aware in the days leading up to January 6th that his supporters were angry when he invited them and then he directed them to the Capitol.   Now, once they were at the Capitol and once the attack on the Capitol happened, he refused to stop it.  He instead issued a tweet that without question in my mind endangered the life of his own Vice President.  And when the violence was going on, he had to be pushed repeatedly by his staff members to do anything to quell it.   And then even afterwards he directed co-conspirators to make calls to Members of Congress, people who had [sic]were his political allies, to further delay the proceedings.

Regarding Smith’s moving for gag orders against Trump’s threats:

… with respect to D.C., both the district court and the court of appeals, a panel of judges, found that his actions were, in fact, causing what we said they caused.  They were causing witnesses to be intimidated and endangering people.   And I believe it was the court of appeals also found that in addition to intimidating or chilling witnesses who existed, it would chill witnesses who had not yet come forward because they were afraid that they would be next.

Regarding the question of the Congressional committee reviewing the special counsel’s case files from the investigation:

Mr. Goldman.  If the case files were released, would they include any political considerations by you or your team as you investigated and charged these cases?

Smith:  We did not consider politics.  I did not consider politics, anyone’s politics, in charging these cases.

Mr. Goldman.  And that would be borne out presumably by the case files?

Smith:  I’m not aware of anything in the case files that would contradict that.

Mr. Goldman.  Because it never happened?

Smith:  It never happened.

Smith:

The right to vote in a presidential election is one of the most sacred rights that America has – Americans have, and in this particular case, we had strong evidence that the defendants in this case sought to interfere with, obstruct, injure that right. We had evidence, and just a couple of examples, where President Trump was asking local officials to find 11,000 votes. When you find 11,000 votes, you’re diluting other people’s votes. We had evidence they were targeting other states and particularly certain parts of other states, generally urban parts of States, to have those votes thrown out with no factual basis whatsoever.  I believe we cited this in our final report, but there is even statements of the co-conspirators in this case, at least one that’s coming to mind now, specifically saying, “We want to get rid of these votes.  We want to subtract them.”   And, diluting the vote count in that way, there is strong precedent for that being a violation of the statute that we charged.

Mr. Goldman.  Did you ever prosecute someone that you did not believe was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?

Smith:  Never.

When Committee Chairman Jordan resumed questioning Smith, he pressed on the question of why Smith sought the toll records of members of Congress from January 6 when he, Smith, could simply have asked for them. Smith’s response:

… you say now that nobody is disputing, but my experience in criminal investigations is that people often at trial dispute things that you never thought were going to be in dispute during the investigation and so, when I conduct a criminal investigation, I don’t assume there will be no disputes.

Having a record that is a hard record about a time, and the timeline about that particular afternoon was important because the violence had started. The President refused to stop it. He endangered the life of his Vice President, and then he’s getting calls, and not just – not calls from Democrats, not calls from people he doesn’t know – calls from people he trusts, calls from people he relies on – and still refuses to come to the aid of the people at the Capitol. That’s very important evidence for criminal intent in our case.

Name of questioner deleted:

So do you recall any evidence, when you were talking to Mr. Giuliani, that he truly believed all the voter-fraud claims that he was putting out around the country?

Smith:

Our evidence was, he did not.  And, in fact, when we interviewed him, he disavowed a number of the claims.  He claimed they were mistakes or hyperbole, even the claim about Ruby Freeman, where he, you know, basically destroyed this poor woman’s life by claiming she was a vote scammer.  President Trump did the same thing in a recorded call with the Secretary of State; he disavowed things he’d said in that interview.

Smith:

Another example I can give is that Sidney Powell, who’s alleged as one of the co-conspirators, was part of his team at the beginning of this conspiracy.  Shortly after, she began making statements that really nobody could credit, that were facially false.   And at some point, Giuliani made a statement that she wasn’t on the legal team anymore.  And Trump at one point was on a call, President Trump, where he, if I recollect it right, he muted the call and said she was crazy.   But then, after that point, he continued to promote her fraud claims and lawsuits.  He considered putting her as a special counsel, even though he’d admitted — you know, he used the word “crazy,” and the statements she was making couldn’t by any reasonable person be viewed as true.   And so I think that sort of, like, claims that were so outlandish and so just fantastical, continuing to push those sort of claims after they’d been disabused, was strong evidence of our case.

Mr. Lofgren:

What did Donald Trump want Vice President Pence to do to overturn the election results?

Smith:

Well, ultimately, he wanted him to just hand him the election, to say he won.  There were different proposals that President Trump and his co-conspirators put to Mike Pence, but, in essence, he wanted Mike Pence to impose his own choice about who should be President over the will of the American people who voted in the election.

Mr. Lofgren:

Was one of those ways that Donald Trump tried to pressure Mr. Pence was to reject the lawful elector certificates of their votes during the electoral counting process?  Was that one of the ways that you recall?

Smith: That’s correct.

Questioner redacted:

Can you help now bring us full circle on how you analyzed the First Amendment claims with the knowledge of the fraud that Mr. Trump was putting out to the American public in 2020 and 2021?

Smith:

Sure. From a legal perspective, this is really quite clear.  I think all of us want to make sure people’s First Amendment rights are not abridged in a way that they shouldn’t be.  I think I certainly feel that way.  I’m sure everybody in this room feels that way.   But there is a very clear carve-out for fraud in our case law.  The Supreme Court — I think there’s — one case is the Stevens case, talks about that, and there are others.   And so when you’re committing a fraud, meaning you’re not just saying something that’s untrue, you’re saying it knowing it’s untrue or with reckless disregard for the truth, that’s not protected by the First Amendment.   People commit crimes all the time using words.  And when someone commits a fraud, an investment fraud, or someone commits an affinity fraud, where you try to gain someone’s trust, get them to trust you as a general matter, and then you rip them off, you defraud them, that’s all words, but it’s not protected by the First Amendment.   And in a lot of ways this case was an affinity fraud.  The President had people who he had built up — who had built up trust in him, including people in his own party, and he preyed on that.   Some people wouldn’t do it.  Others would.  We’re lucky that enough wouldn’t that the election was upheld.

Regarding the Supreme Court’s decision that Trump was absolutely immune from accountability for crimes committed while executing the president’s executive powers:

Smith:

All of those witnesses … would still be available to us. The heart of our case would still be available to us.

And I think it’s important to know that … our view was that he abused his authority in the Justice Department to as one way, to effectuate this scheme. This was about him as a candidate trying to say he won an election he didn’t win, and so, having to frame this in that matter, obviously, it limited some of the evidence. That’s why we had to supersede the indictment.

But I don’t think it was an exoneration because I still believed that there was substantial evidence that would allow us to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The balance of the deposition relates to the indictment and related search of the Mar-a-Lago premises for confidential documents that Trump removed from the White House, stored in insecure facilities where many people without security clearances could have seen them, and about the efforts of Trump and his aides to conceal the documents from the attorneys searching for them. Smith notes in the deposition that the judge (a Trump appointee) who decided the challenges to the search of Mar-a-Lago had stated that “the defense motion does not even meaningfully challenge the presence of probable cause in the affidavit.” Smith also noted that “President Trump kept these incredibly highly classified documents in boxes with all different sorts of things of all different sorts of shapes and sizes — clothing, memorabilia, newspaper clippings, things of that nature.”

Near the end of the deposition, a redacted questioner posed these questions:

Q:  So, Mr. Smith, you spoke earlier today about threats and attacks against — made by Donald Trump against witnesses, prosecutors, judges who had challenged him, including threats against yourself. Do you remember that?

Smith: Yes.

Q : So did President Trump target you personally in posts on Truth Social?

Smith: Yes.

Q: Are you aware, for example, that he called you a, quote, “deranged lunatic,” unquote; quote, “Trump hater,” unquote; and, quote, “psycho”?

Smith: Yes.

Q: Do you recall that, on October 15th this year, President Trump, speaking to reporters, standing next to the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General, said,  quote, “Deranged Jack Smith, in my opinion, is a criminal,” unquote? Then he also talked about investigating Lisa Monaco, Andrew Weissmann, and Adam Schiff, saying, quote, “I hope they’re looking at all these people. And I’m allowed to find out. I’m, in theory, the chief law enforcement officer,” unquote.

Smith: Yes, I’m aware of that.

Q: And are you aware that President Trump posted on Truth Social on October 29th of this year that, quote, “these thugs should all be investigated and put in prison. A disgrace to humanity. Deranged Jack Smith is a criminal!!!” with three exclamation marks, unquote?

Smith: That may be. I know there were several posts like this.

Q: Okay. Do you think those were a direction, potential direction, to Department of Justice to retaliate against you because of your role as special counsel in 1 the investigation of him?

Smith: Yes.

Q: You are joined by your counsel today from Covington & Burling. Is that right?

Smith: Yes.

Q: And did President Trump or the White House take any actions against your attorneys due to their relationship with you?

Smith: Yes.

Q; And what action did they take?

Smith: They filed an executive order against the law firm and sought to withdraw the security clearances of my attorney.

The deposition concludes with a discussion of the fact that President Trump pardoned all of the convicted men and women who attacked the Capitol on January 6, 2021, injuring and killing police officers, and then pardoned the 77 people involved in seeking to overturn the 2020 election.

 

Is Trump Disqualified?

Leave a reply

The New York Times reports that:

Two prominent conservative law professors have concluded that Donald J. Trump is ineligible to be president under a provision of the Constitution that bars people who have engaged in an insurrection from holding government office.

https://tinyurl.com/yh38rjyd

Oh, Lordy, I wish they were right.

But are they?

The NYT article says:

The professors are active members of the Federalist Society, the conservative legal group, and proponents of originalism, the method of interpretation that seeks to determine the Constitution’s original meaning.

Upon reading that, my first thought was Groucho Marx’s infamous saying that, “I don’t want to belong to any club that will accept me as a member.” But I digress. I do not adhere to such absolutist thinking about most things, and I suspect there’s a club somewhere that I might want to join, though whether there is one that would have me is another question for another day.

Returning to my new-found idols (if and only if they’re right) in the Federalist Society, they summarize their conclusion this way:

Donald Trump cannot be president — cannot run for president, cannot become president, cannot hold office — unless two-thirds of Congress decides to grant him amnesty for his conduct on Jan. 6.

Affirming what I and many others have been saying since at least January 6, 2021, the esteemed authors of a forthcoming law review article state there is:

“abundant evidence” that Mr. Trump engaged in an insurrection, including by setting out to overturn the result of the 2020 presidential election, trying to alter vote counts by fraud and intimidation, encouraging bogus slates of competing electors, pressuring the vice president to violate the Constitution, calling for the march on the Capitol and remaining silent for hours during the attack itself.

“It is unquestionably fair to say that Trump ‘engaged in’ the Jan. 6 insurrection through both his actions and his inaction,” ….

Abundant evidence. Yes. Unquestionably fair. Without a doubt, reasonable or otherwise.

But is saying it enough? What about innocent until proven guilty, etc. Right to a fair trial. All that.

The relevant sections of the 14thAmendment to the Constitution state:

No person shall … hold any office, civil or military, under the United States … who, having previously taken an oath, … as an officer of the United States … to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

The central question is, I think, whether the provision is self-executing or requires a judicial finding that the person in question has engaged in insurrection, etc. The least relevant question is whether Congress would give Trump a pass. Two-thirds of “each House” means what it says (originalists are stuck with that) and that’s not happening.

According to the Times, the article concludes that:

essentially all of that evidence pointed in the same direction: “toward a broad understanding of what constitutes insurrection and rebellion and a remarkably, almost extraordinarily, broad understanding of what types of conduct constitute engaging in, assisting, or giving aid or comfort to such movements.”

It added, “The bottom line is that Donald Trump both ‘engaged in’ ‘insurrection or rebellion’ and gave ‘aid or comfort’ to others engaging in such conduct, within the original meaning of those terms as employed in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.”

I’m fully down with that so far but the question remains, I think.

The provision’s language is automatic, the article said, establishing a qualification for holding office no different in principle from the Constitution’s requirement that only people who are at least 35 years old are eligible to be president.

“Section 3’s disqualification rule may and must be followed — applied, honored, obeyed, enforced, carried out — by anyone whose job it is to figure out whether someone is legally qualified to office,” the authors wrote. That includes election administrators, the article said.

In an interview, apparently, Professor Steven Calabresi, a law professor at Northwestern and Yale and a founder of the Federalist Society, said those administrators must act:

“Trump is ineligible to be on the ballot, and each of the 50 state secretaries of state has an obligation to print ballots without his name on them,” he said, adding that they may be sued for refusing to do so.

Therein lies the rub. Republican secretaries of state, many of whom are abjectly committed to support Trump no matter what, cannot be assumed to perform the asserted duty, no matter how forcefully that obligation is confirmed by Federalist Society professors. Some enterprising journalist should immediately put the question to each of the fifty secretaries of state, starting tomorrow. What they say will not, of course, be binding but still would be good to know their answers in fashioning a way forward.

As much as I desperately want to believe that Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment is self-executing, the cynics among us (me) do not believe anything so simple could possibly work in the political world Trump has handed down to our country. Lawsuits are going to be necessary, complicated, I suggest, by the fact that Special Counsel Jack Smith elected not to charge Trump with insurrection under the relevant statute:

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. [18 U.S. Code § 2383-enacted June 25, 1948]

Why Smith did not bring that charge has not been, and likely will never be, explained, but Trump will try to drive his denial truck through that gap and, typically, more litigation will ensue if anyone tries to disqualify him through legal action.

A final observation. I just read that Alan Dershowitz, ready to defend Trump’s criminality at every turn, has reportedly declared that the 14thAmendment applies only to “those who served the Confederacy during the Civil War.” Reported in the Daily Caller (where else?) but published only in the SmartNews app, apparently. The piece notes that the “the text does not authorize Congress—or any other body or individual—to impose the disqualification in the first place.” Further, the article claims, “It wasn’t intended as a general provision empowering one party to disqualify the leading candidate of the other party in any future elections.”

That’s an odd claim for an ultra-originalist to make. That fact, moreover, undermines Dershowitz’s argument. If no mechanism for applying the law was created, the most reasonable conclusion is that Congress thought it was self-actuating. And, if it were true that the law was only to apply to ex-Confederates, it would be most reasonable to expect that the statutory text would have been explicit to that effect.

The contrary position states that

it was fairly evident who participated in the Civil War on the part of the South. No formal mechanism was needed for making that obvious determination. If the disqualification had been intended as a general rule applicable to all future elections, it would have been essential to designate the appropriate decision maker, the procedures and the criteria for making so important a decision.

That argument ignores that Marbury v Madison was decided by the United States Supreme Court establishing the principle of judicial review, that the Constitution was indeed the supreme law of the land that Congress could not by itself change. While the article lists all kinds of mischief that might ensue without explicit mandates of who decides what, the reality, I suggest, is that the claimed disabilities are overcome by the fact that judicial review of all actions inconsistent with the plain intent of the statute would be available. As with many other laws in which judicial oversight is not expressly mentioned, the supremacy of federal law and the even greater supremacy of the Constitution are sufficient to warrant the conclusion that Congress did not have to established a specific enforcement mechanism for the operative sections of the Amendment. The courts were available to adjudicate any conflicting claims.

Thus, the absence of an explicit provision for judicial review does not support the speculation that the courts “might regard as a political question” the issue of whether a candidate had engaged in insurrection. No reason exists to think of that as a political question beyond the courts’ purview or that “if the controversy were not resolved by the Supreme Court, there would be a constitutional crisis.” Such imaginings are the product of an overactive ultra-originalist imagination.

Dershowitz gives himself away in the ensuing argument that,

Interpreting this post-Civil War amendment as a general provision for disqualifying candidates who some people may believeparticipated in what they regard as an insurrection or rebellion—as distinguished from a protest or even a riot—would create yet another divisive weapon in our increasingly partisan war. It would be used by Republicans against candidates who may have supported (gave “aid or comfort” to) riots such as those that followed the killing of George Floyd or other violence-provoking events. [boldface added]

The Constitution articulated limited qualifications for presidential eligibility. Beyond those neutral criteria, the decision should be made by voters, who are free to consider the participation of a candidate in activities with which they disagree. Unless an amendment was clearly intended to further limit these qualifications, the voters are the ones to decide who is to be their president.

Quite clearly, Dershowitz is fine if “the voters” decide it’s acceptable to elect a criminal who tried to stop the peaceful transfer of presidential power and who has threatened violence and further insurrection if he is elected. That is not the argument of a “constitutionalist,” at least not the one that laid the foundation for the United States. No basis exists, I suggest, for interpreting the Constitution or any federal statute as permitting the overthrow of the government if a bare majority use the ballot box rather than armed revolt to accomplish it.

That said, I believe it is entirely appropriate for lawsuits to be instituted to present to the courts for adjudication the question whether January 6 was an unlawful insurrection and, if so, whether Donald Trump inspired, incited, and directed it. If yes, he’s out. Period.

Let’s get on with it. Somebody (ACLU?) sue to bar his candidacy for the presidency and let the future of our democracy be decided.

Hubris and the Junk Heap of History – Part 2

Leave a reply

Let’s review what has happened most recently.

  • 6-8-23 Trump is indicted. Finally. Thirty-seven counts. Felonies. Trump is accused of harboring hundreds of classified documents dealing with, defense and weapons capabilities of both the United States and foreign countries; United States nuclear programs; potential vulnerabilities of the United States and its allies to military attack; and plans for possible retaliation in response to a foreign attack.
  • Classified documents were stored in multiple unsecured locations at Mar-a-Lago;
  • On at least two occasions, Trump showed classified documents to persons not cleared to see them;
  • Trump obstructed the grand jury investigation by:
  • suggesting that his attorney falsely represent to the FBI and grand jury that Trump did not have documents called for by the grand jury subpoena;
  • directing co-defendant Waltine Nauta to move boxes of documents to conceal them from Trump’s attorney, the FBI, and the grand jury;
  • suggesting that his attorney hide or destroy documents called for by the grand jury subpoena;
  • providing to the FBI and grand jury just some of the documents called for by the grand jury subpoena, while claiming that he was cooperating fully; and
  • causing a false certification to be submitted to the FBI and grand jury representing that all documents called for by the grand jury subpoena had been produced while knowing that, in fact, not all such documents had been produced;
  • Trump was personally involved in causing boxes containing hundreds of classified documents, to be transportedfrom the White House to The Mar-a-Lago Club;
  • Trump directed the move of some classified documents to non-secure locations at his Bedminster Club;
  • Despite public statements to the contrary, Trump was fully aware that he had not declassified the documents while he was president;
  • Trump and his co-defendant withheld key information from Trump’s attorneys regarding the location and number of document boxes at Mar-a-Lago;
  • Trump knowingly procured a false certification by one of his attorneys regarding the classified documents at Mar-a-Lago;
  • As a result, Trump was charged with:

Willful Retention of National Defense Information in violation of 18 U.S.C. § (e)

 Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1512(k)

Withholding a Document or Record in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(b)(2)(A), 2

Corruptly Concealing a Document or Record in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(c)(l), 2

Concealing a Document in a Federal Investigation in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1519, 2

Scheme to Conceal in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ lO0l(a)(l), 2

 False Statements and Representations in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001(a)(2), 2

 All the allegations are supported by documents, testimony, photographs, and recordings.

TRUMP’S “DEFENSES” [Or “What, Are You, Nuts?]

[Warning: Do not eat or drink while reading this next part]

The willful ignorance of Republican politicians brings to mind Sam Cooke’s anthem song with the perverse (in current circumstances) title of Wonderful World:

Don’t know much about history
Don’t know much biology
Don’t know much about a science book

Don’t know much about the French I took
But I do know that I love you
And I know that if you love me, too
What a wonderful world this would be ….

One person who loves Trump is the Republican Speaker of the House, Kevin McCarthy, who just hours after the unsealing of Trump’s 37-count felony indictment threatened the U.S. Attorney General, stating that House Republicans “are not going to stand for” the criminal prosecution of the ex-president. McCarthy, in keeping with the observations above, claims Trump is being treated differently than others, even though no one in modern times has committed the treasonous acts for which the evidence against Trump is overwhelming. No one.

The Republican idea of “equal justice” is to treat Trump better than everyone else. Trump had numerous chances to get true equal treatment; all he had to do was return the documents and, if, and it’s a massive ‘if,’ he had a claim to them, pursue it through legal channels. Instead, he chose self-help and then engaged in a coverup. By grossly misstating the legal processes by which the Trump indictment was issued, McCarthy proved he is just as dishonest as Trump himself, a believer in what Kellyanne Conway, acting as counselor to Trump, cynically called “alternative facts.”

McCarthy’s sycophancy is not peculiar to him. In his usual manner of double-talking between law, politics and delusion, Alan Dershowitz produced this preposterous standard for judging Trump’s conduct: “the Richard Nixon test.”https://tinyurl.com/5y6zz4yv (Fox Business. Where else?):

“It has to be at least as strong as the case against Richard Nixon, which we will remember led not to Democrats to demand his resignation, but Republicans, his own colleagues came to him and said, this case is so strong that we can’t support you,” Dershowitz said Friday on “Mornings with Maria.” “I haven’t seen any suggestion that Republicans agree with this indictment,” the professor continued.

Translated to simple English, Dershowitz thinks the proper legal test for Trump’s document crimes is whether Republicans approve of his being indicted. Wow. How the mighty have lost their way. Dershowitz had more to say:

American citizens, Dershowitz argued, should be able to cast their votes for those candidates who align with their social, economic or foreign policy views as opposed to “who’s more criminal.”

The professor argued there “has to be equal justice” served as he pointed out Republicans will likely speed up their investigation into Hunter Biden and the Biden family foreign business dealings.

“If I were a Republican leader, what I would do is draft a potential indictment against Biden and his son based on the information that’s now available, and present that in the court of public opinion in juxtaposition with the indictment that will come down on Tuesday,” Dershowitz said, “and let the public judge.

Dershowitz apparently believes that the reality and nature of Trump’s crimes is simply irrelevant to whether he should be president again.

Dershowitz seems to have forgotten about the long history of the Trump family’s foreign entanglements, including massive infusions of cash from Saudi Arabia. But I am for “equal justice” too. If there is evidence of corruption in the Biden family that relates to the president doing his job, bring it.  So far, nothing but phantasmagorical claims based on missing or criminally indicted “witnesses.” It looks a lot like the claims of election fraud that Trump and his cronies repeatedly asserted without evidence. Republicans are the reincarnation of the Gang That Couldn’t Shoot Straight.

Meanwhile, otherwise responsible media continues to bemoan the fact that a former president is being charged. The Washington Post Editorial Board wrote on June 9 that,

No one should celebrate Thursday’s indictment of Donald Trump in a case involving classified documents improperly stored at his Mar-a-Lago estate. Something has gone deeply wrong when, in a historic first, federal prosecutors reach the point of filing criminal charges against a former and possibly future president. Yet, in this matter, the defendant appears to have left them little choice.

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-posts-view/]

On the contrary, all patriotic Americans should applaud the fact that “equal justice” means what it says and that one’s political status does not confer privileges to violate the law that applies to others. The Post finds the allegations against Trump “disturbing” as if they related to shoplifting a shirt at Macy’s. And USAToday continues to publish click-bait pieces like this one: Donald Trump was indicted over classified documents. Why aren’t Joe Biden and Mike Pence? https://tinyurl.com/5xv63mjh

Concerns have justifiably arisen about the bizarre fact that the Trump-appointed judge in the documents case is the same judge that was reversed in dramatic terms by the 11th Circuit for gross errors of law and bias toward Trump. Jack Smith is unlikely to tolerate much funny business from her but there are clearly risks in her overseeing a criminal trial like this, given her lack of experience and apparent lack of judgment. Time will tell.

Trump is in serious trouble as his standard stratagems of delay and obfuscation are, one by one, falling apart. He appears to be destined for trial in the Mar-a-Lago documents case and for new indictments related to the January 6 fake-electors scheme and the January 6 insurrection. These cannot come soon enough, particularly since, reports already indicate that Judge Cannon is falling all over herself to stall the case against Trump. https://tinyurl.com/yck42wbt  She should be removed from the case before it’s too late.

If fair-minded juries are chosen and the trials are fairly administered, Trump will surely be convicted of multiple felonies, along with, hopefully, many of his co-conspirators.

Trump will then go down in history – down being the correct word here – as what he is: the worst criminal ever to occupy the White House. He will join the legions of failed putative dictators and other men that fortune falsely anointed as “great men” but whose ignorance and greed undid them. Trump loves to do his form of “dance” at rallies to the YMCA song to show that he’s young, virile, and cool, but his real song should be Send in the Clowns to distract from the reality that his day of reckoning may finally, at long last, be approaching.

Rebuttal to “The case against indicting Trump”

Leave a reply

 

It’s fair to say that I mostly agree with positions taken by Randall D. Eliason, who is an adjunct faculty member and teaches white-collar criminal law at George Washington University Law School. Some of his WAPO articles are listed at https://wapo.st/3nKdvDc

Nevertheless, having addressed the subject of pardons/indictment of Donald Trump (https://bit.ly/3m32c8L),  I feel compelled to respond to this latest set of arguments as to why the U.S. government should let Trump and his family walk away unscathed from the wreckage he has wrought on the country and the treasure he has stolen. https://wapo.st/39fwOk1 So, I plunge ahead.

Eliason’s first argument is,

“Launching criminal investigations into an outgoing president would set a dangerous precedent. In this country, we don’t use the criminal justice system to punish political opponents.”

This is a problematic framing of the issue. The purpose of criminal actions would not be to “punish political opponents.” First, the issue is crimes committed in office, not “punishing political opponents” for being opponents or for pursuing policies with which we disagree. Second, it’s far from clear that Donald Trump will remain a “political opponent” once he is out of the presidency. There is speculation, of course, that he has tasted the drug of political power and, like every addict, will be unable to resist going back for more. But there are a multitude of obstacles to his being a serious political force once he is not commanding the news cycle all day and night every day and night. [For clarity, I am fully aware of my assumption that the media will cease amplifying every stupid and outrageous thing Trump says and does and that it will pay most of its attention to the actual government and what it is doing for the country].

Eliason anticipates my position to some degree, in noting that Trump’s supporters will see criminal investigation as an effort to silence Trump in anticipation of his next run for the presidency. No doubt that is true. The “minds” of politicians like Jim Jordan, Matt Gaetz, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and the Grim Reaper Mitch McConnell will explode with endless invective as occurred when Trump was impeached, and Republicans became hysterical even though they knew they would not admit relevant evidence or witnesses of the crimes Trump had committed in the Ukraine affair.

The question on this issue, I respectfully suggest, is not what Republican sycophants will say but whether what they say is worthy of consideration and continuing influence in the nation’s public affairs. Catering to them, I believe, will have the effect of validating Trump’s rhetoric in a way that is fundamentally inconsistent with the core of the country’s reason for existence, it’s “soul,” if you will.

Eliason also argues that many of Trump’s actions are not “actually criminal.” Fine, I have no objection to giving him a pass on those, no matter how offensive his views and behaviors may have been. There are still plenty of grounds for indictment, including the ones that the Democrats, for reasons I have never understood and railed against at the time, failed to bring in the impeachment articles. I refer the ten (minimum) instances of “obstruction of justice” established by the Mueller Investigation. No indictment was brought on those very strong cases only because Department of Justice policy (dubiously) forbad indictment of a sitting president. See https://bit.ly/3768GNI  https://bit.ly/372xCG3 https://bit.ly/35YyjB5  https://bit.ly/35WpnMg https://bit.ly/2UUurKR

There are likely many others, some of which will only be discovered when the documentary record of Trump’s White House is available for inspection (assuming, of course, that they don’t destroy the key documents before exiting). For example, there are the original notes of the call with Ukraine President Zelensky that we were told had been stored in a secure White House server and have never seen the light of day. The records related to the policy of caging kids at the southern border will also make interesting reading. Because Trump was known to destroy documents he created and given other propensities of White House aides to do whatever Trump demanded, there is a high risk that many documents have been destroyed and, if so, there is the question whether such conduct should go unpunished because Republicans don’t care about such niceties as federal record retention laws or the Hatch Act that was deliberately violated repeatedly by Trump’s staff.

Eliason addresses the obstruction of justice issues but resists criminal enforcement because “the Democratic House of Representatives did not even see fit to impeach the president over those alleged crimes.” To that, I retort, “so what?” That was a political decision, one that was terribly misguided in my view, but, in any case, it was not a creditable judgment that a criminal case could not be based on obstruction. I simply don’t understand Eliason’s conclusion that the “book appears largely closed on Trump’s obstruction.”

Eliason then turns to the “other punishments” of Trump’s misconduct, noting that “the country saw his behavior and booted him.” And Eliason is likely right that “Trump is destined to go down in history as an impeached, disgraced president.” Trump won’t care much about the judgment of history, however. He will spend his remaining years in luxury, denying the truth, interfering in political issues solely for attention and generally being disruptive to keep attention on himself.

That leads nicely into Eliason’s final argument, that “criminal investigations would guarantee that the next few years continue to be all about Trump.” My answer is that even if Trump is allowed to just walk away, he will do everything in his power to keep the media attention on himself. And he will be aided in this by the same collection of spineless, traitorous Republican politicians that have been too cowardly to stand up to him for the past four years.

So, while there are respectable arguments that the United States should just write Trump’s presidency off as a terrible mistake and focus entirely on repairing the damage, I continue to believe that such focus will be impossible and will in fact be continually impaired by Trump’s arrogant interference. If he is under criminal indictment, his attorneys will almost certainly advise him to shut his mouth, stop tweeting and behave responsibly for once in his life. He may resist. So be it. But any way you look at this, Trump is going to be around and will refuse to be ignored.

Finally, I observe that in his closing, Eliason acknowledges that grounds may well exist to pursue a former president. He mentions one who “sold our most sensitive intelligence to an enemy.” I remind us all that there were multiple instances in which Trump gave intelligence information to Russian diplomats and in which he destroyed notes or otherwise prevented record-keeping of conversations with leaders such as Vladimir Putin. In these types of cases, Eliason admits that “it would be unimaginable to say that president is immune from prosecution” While he thinks Trump’s record in this regard is not egregious enough, I contend we don’t know enough at this time to reach that conclusion. There are plenty of grounds for concern in the cases I have mentioned. This goes well beyond “norms” and other traditional practices that Trump savaged.

The solution to the problem of “appearances of weaponizing” the Department of Justice is not to do it. President Biden can make clear, and live by his word, that prosecutorial decisions will be made solely by prosecutors and that he will stand by whatever decisions they make. Republicans will scream like stuck pigs, of course, but we have heard more than enough of their false moralizing and false equivalencies for many lifetimes. The republic’s best move, then, in my opinion, is to put Trump on the legal defensive by aggressively pursuing well-founded, sharply focused criminal indictments for his worst crimes in office.

 

Mueller’s Indictment of Russia Hackers

2 Replies

I have plowed through the entirety of the indictment, which is full of details about the Russian hacking of the Democratic National Campaign Committee and related bodies. I only have a few observations to offer.

First, the indictment makes clear beyond a doubt both the sophistication of the U.S. intelligence apparatus in discovering these remarkable details about the hacking operation. It also explains in part why the Mueller investigation is taking so long. An extraordinary amount of work must lie behind the allegations in the indictment.

Second, the indictment has no direct bearing on the issue that Trump and his enablers are so obsessed about – to wit, the issue of collusion. As a result, the assertions of the Republican National Committee and other Trump sycophants that it is now “clear” that there was no collusion by the Trump campaign is preposterous on its face. These repeated claims of innocence are candy for his base, but Trump shows every sign of someone deeply guilty of serious crimes.

Third, the indictment contains a remarkable statement in paragraph 43(a). I must have missed the reporting on it. It states that a “candidate for the U.S. Congress” asked for, and received, stolen emails from the Russia hackers posing as Gucifer 2.0. The information related to the candidate’s opponent. The indictment gives no hints whether this was a candidate for the House or the Senate, nor any other potentially identifying details. But, whoever it was, that person must be sweating bullets tonight. And deservedly so.

So, on this Friday the 13th, the scary stuff is over for now. But not for long. I suspect this is just one small part of the muck that Mueller’s people are exploring.

Indictment of Donald J. Trump, President of the United States

3 Replies

BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION
& EQUAL JUSTICE FOR ALL

THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES
                        v.
DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

INDICTMENT FOR HIGH CRIMES & MISDEMEANORS & ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT

COMES NOW, THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES,

Who have declared that all men are created equal in the eyes of the law and entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and

Who have adopted a Constitution and amendments in the belief that thereby a more perfect union could exist with a government of the people, by the people, for the people, and

Who, having considered the manifest and mounting evidence of incompetence and dishonesty repeatedly demonstrated by the sitting President and his appointed officials (hereafter sometimes referred to as “Trump”),

DO HEREBY DECLARE that Trump has violated his oath office by consistently failing to faithfully execute the office of president of the United States and failing to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States by engaging in the acts set forth below, among many others:

  1. Knowingly violated Article I, Clause 8 of the Constitution forbidding receipt of foreign-sourced emoluments by failing to separate himself from management of, and financial rewards from, his many private business interests which he and his family regularly promote to and receive from, at least indirectly, financial benefits originating with foreign business and government interests;
  2. Repeatedly signed Executive Orders found to be blatant violations of the Constitution (a) regarding immigrants/refugees from Muslim-majority countries without evidence that they would accomplish any meaningful security purpose and (b) threatening the withholding of federal funds from Sanctuary Cities;
  3. Repeatedly signed Executive Orders designed to permit uncontrolled air and water pollution while denying the validity of scientific method and rejecting without basis in fact or reason the multiply authenticated findings of climate scientists around the world;
  4. Lied repeatedly about important matters bearing on his credibility, including, but not limited to, his claim that former President Obama wiretapped Trump Tower in New York;
  5. Repeatedly lied about his intention to release his tax returns for public scrutiny and refused in fact to release them;
  6. Lied about his intention to appoint highly qualified people to his Cabinet, instead awarding Department Head positions to manifestly unqualified persons such as Betsy Devos at Education, Ben Carson at HUD, Scott Pruitt at EPA, Rick Perry at Energy and Jefferson Beauregard Sessions as Attorney General;
  7. Attempted to undermine the independent news media by attacking professional journalists, and the media companies that employ them, as purveyors of “fake news” and labeling them as “enemies of the people;”
  8. Wasted millions of dollars of taxpayer funds on unnecessary trips to his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida where he plays golf almost every weekend and conducts serious public business in non-secure facilities;
  9. Personally visited on a frequent basis hotel/resort properties bearing his name, thereby continuing to promote his business interests and encouraging private firms to use such properties for their business and his and his family’s ultimate enrichment;
  10. Falsely claimed that Department of Justice data proves that the majority of domestic terrorist attacks after 9/11 were committed by those from abroad, thereby facilitating hostility of Americans toward Muslims and toward foreign countries with significant Muslim populations to the detriment of American foreign policy and relations with those countries and their people;
  11. Repeatedly falsely asserted responsibility for private company decisions in matters such as the price of the Lockheed Martin F-35 and the Toyota investment in Kentucky;
  12. Falsely asserted that he has accomplished more in his first 100 days in office than any president in history, thereby undermining the trust of the people in the office of the president;
  13. Lied about his knowledge of the operations of WikiLeaks and repeatedly lied about his knowledge of the attempts by Russia to influence the 2016 election, including Russians collaborating with members of Trump’s campaign staff;
  14. Covertly interfered with the congressional investigations of the connections between the Trump election campaign and Russia;
  15. Misrepresented statements by political leaders, such as Democratic Rep. Elijah Cummings, whom Trump claimed had said Trump “will be the greatest president in the history of this country.”
  16. Repeatedly lied about the size of attendance at his inaugural ceremony;
  17. Repeatedly misrepresented the share of the Electoral College vote he received and falsely claimed that he would have won the popular vote but for 3 million “illegal” votes cast;
  18. Demonstrated a thorough-going failure to understand history or geography, making such claims as that “Korea actually used to be a part of China;”
  19. Falsely attributed NATO’s anti-terrorism activities to his personal criticism of NATO for not fighting terrorism;
  20. Lied about the length and extent of his pre-election relationship with Steve Bannon;
  21. Demonstrated a serious lack of knowledge about international trade, falsely claiming, for example, that the trade deficit with China was more than $150 billion larger than in reality;
  22. Gave aid and comfort to authoritarian leaders around the world, including Vladimir Putin and Rodrigo Duterte;
  23. Repeatedly supported changes in law and federal policy to deprive elderly, infirm, disabled, poor and foreign-born persons of equal protection of the laws and due process of law, in violation of the Constitution of the United States.
  24. Threatened to shut down the federal government to get his way on budget cuts that will endanger the lives of Americans.

WHEREFORE, for good cause shown, proceedings for impeachment of Donald J. Trump should be commenced forthwith in accordance with the Constitutional provisions pertinent thereto, or in the alternative, removal proceedings should be commenced forthwith in accordance with Amendment 25 to the Constitution.

So it is written, so let it be done.

This Indictment and Articles of Impeachment are subject to amendment as additional facts are forthcoming.