INDICTED

Just saw this breaking news moments ago (8:20 pm EDT, June 8th). Gonna be a total shitshow storm this weekend if true.

Update: it’s true. He has to appear at 3 pm Tuesday in federal court in Miami.

 

Dear Republicans
A thought about our former president, our laws, and our future
TIMOTHY SNYDER  JUN 9, 2023

Dear Republicans,

I wake up this morning to read a number of Republican elected representatives assigning themselves the role of judge and jury in the Trump espionage case.  Why do I write "judge and jury"?  Because to declare the man not guilty is to take the place of the judicial branch.

It's one thing when an average citizen does this.  We can all have our opinions.  But it's quite another when a senator or a representative makes such a claim.  The basis of our Constitution is the separation of powers.  When elected representatives take the place of judges and juries, they violate that spirit.  They tell citizens that the laws they make are in fact meaningless.

I read also of Republicans who suddenly talk about unequal treatment of Americans in our judicial system.  Yes, that is a problem, one recognized by the millions of people who don't have the money to fund your campaigns or your lobbyists, or to fund teams of lawyers like Trump's.  It's a problem for all of the typical Americans who see that people like Trump get off over and over again.  Trump says that he is a wealthy man.  To say that a wealthy man is above the law is making the real problem worse.

I read Republican politicians claim that a former president cannot be tried.  If that were true, then every wealthy criminal would run for office, seeking their lifelong get-out-of-jail card.  If that were true, then presidents in office and out of office would be incentivized to commit crimes.  If that were true, Americans would quickly lose all confidence in the office of the presidency.

The job of the executive is to enforce the law. Putting the executive above the law makes nonsense of the Constitution. Does trying a former president make us a banana republic?  No, not doing so makes us a banana republic, or really something worse.  The moment we say that one person is above the law, we no longer have the rule of law.  The moment we no longer have the rule of law, we cease to exist as any kind of republic…
___

Menacing Tough Guy.

UPDATE

The Special Prosecutor federal indictment in the Trump classified documents Mar-a-Lago case, has been unsealed and released to the public (PDF). It is 49 pages long, and I would encourage everyone to read it carefully.

Click for article link

ADDENDUM

 

Excellent indictment annotations added by the NY Times:

[Top] Although law enforcement officials conducted most of the investigation using a grand jury in Washington, the special counsel chose to bring the case in Florida. That avoided a potential legal fight over venue, but it carried the risk that the case would be assigned to Judge Aileen M. Cannon, who was appointed by former President Donald J. Trump and who has issued a series of rulings unusually favorable to him. Judge Cannon will indeed take the case, according to people familiar with the matter.

[3] The indictment lays out the potential danger of the classified information in the documents Mr. Trump kept at his Mar-a-Lago estate.

[6a] As has been recently reported, the special counsel, Jack Smith, has apparently obtained an audio recording of Mr. Trump acknowledging that he knew a document in his possession was still classified. That stands at odds with Mr. Trump’s public claims that he had declassified all the materials he took from the Oval Office. (No credible evidence has emerged to support that claim, which his lawyers had declined to repeat in court, where there are professional consequences for lying.)

[6b] This section of the indictment outlines another incident in which Mr. Trump is accused of having shown a classified document to someone while acknowledging that it was still secret. It does not refer to a recording, raising the possibility that the unidentified representative of his political action committee provided this account to investigators.

[7a-e] The indictment lays out five specific actions by Mr. Trump that it says were illegal obstruction.

[9] Mr. Trump’s aide Walt Nauta was also indicted and is described in this filing as a co-conspirator in the crimes.

[11] The indictment emphasizes how many people were wandering in and out of Mr. Trump’s estate in Florida, implying that improperly storing classified documents there risked their disclosure.

[22] The indictment uses Mr. Trump’s words from the 2016 campaign, attacking his rival, Hillary Clinton, over her use of a private email server while she was secretary of state, to show he understood the importance of protecting classified information.

25] The indictment includes a photograph showing that some of the boxes Mr. Trump had taken from the White House were stored for a time in a ballroom in Mar-a-Lago where guests had access.

[31] The indictment includes a photograph by Mr. Nauta that shows boxes spilling classified documents onto the floor of a storage room.

[34] The existence of this recording came to public light this month. Mr. Trump claimed the document was written by Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

[34, cont] In this recording, Mr. Trump acknowledged that he had a document that was still classified and was showing it to three other people who did not have security clearances and were not authorized to see it.

[36] The indictment again uses Mr. Trump’s own words to condemn him.

[38] Throughout the investigation, reporting suggested that investigators were examining the movement of boxes in and out of the storage room at Mar-a-Lago after Mr. Trump knew the government wanted the documents back.

[47] The indictment accuses Mr. Nauta of lying to the F.B.I. about moving the boxes.

[53] The details of this description of Mr. Nauta moving a box from the storage room, after a subpoena in May requested the return of the documents, most likely come from Mar-a-Lago security camera footage. Investigators also subpoenaed that footage.

[55] Trump Attorney 1 remains unnamed in the document, but the designation appears to refer to Evan Corcoran, who played a key role in handling Mr. Trump’s responses to the government over its repeated requests for the return of the documents. Mr. Corcoran made a lengthy and detailed voice memo about his conversations with Mr. Trump. Mr. Smith fought a legal battle to obtain that material, and a federal judge ruled that the so-called crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege applied.

[55, cont] The indictment inserts this anecdote, apparently about personal emails on Mrs. Clinton’s private server that her lawyer had destroyed, without comment. The insinuation may be that Mr. Trump was implying, without directly asking, his lawyer to destroy classified documents he found problematic.

[58b] The special counsel appears to be connecting phone records and surveillance footage to show a link between Mr. Trump’s and Mr. Nauta’s actions.

[62] The indictment suggests that Mr. Trump and Mr. Nauta hid boxes of documents from Mr. Corcoran, who would soon tell the Justice Department that there were no other files responsive to the subpoena — which was not true.

[66] Here is another instance presented as Mr. Trump asking, without directly asking, for Mr. Corcoran to destroy classified documents rather than turn them over to the government.

[70] The lawyer who signed a statement stating that a diligent search had been conducted and that all known classified information had been returned to the government was Christina Bobb, who was serving as the formal custodian of records for Mr. Trump’s office. The indictment makes clear she did not know the statements in the attestation were false.

[74] The narrative ends with the F.B.I. search that turned up 103 classified documents.

[76] Trump has been charged with violating a provision of the Espionage Act, a 1917 law that makes it a crime to hold onto secret government documents without authorization. This provision was enacted before the advent of the modern classification system, and it does not require prosecutors to prove that the secret documents had been deemed classified. Trump has claimed that he declassified everything that he took from the White House, although no credible evidence has emerged to support that claim. The penalty is up to 10 years per offense.

[77] Only Mr. Trump – not Mr. Nauta – is charged with violations of the Espionage Act.

[77, cont] The indictment lists 31 documents, each of which is the subject of a separate count of Espionage Act violation.

[78] Mr. Trump has been charged with violating a law that makes it a crime to corruptly impede an official proceeding. The penalty is up to 20 years per offense.

[86] Mr. Trump has been charged with violating a law that makes it a crime to conceal records to obstruct an official effort. The penalty is up to 20 years per offense.

[90] Mr. Trump and Mr. Nauta have each been charged with one count of violating a law that makes it a crime to issue false statements to federal investigators. Although Trump said little directly to law enforcement officials — instead communicating through his lawyers — people can be held liable for a crime if they induce other people to commit the action. The penalty is up to five years per offense.

[91] Trump Attorney 3 appears to refer to Ms. Bobb. Mr. Trump is charged as the principal for the false statements made to the government in Ms. Bobb’s certification because he is accused of having induced them.

res ipsa loquitur

 

SPECIAL COUNSEL'S JUNE 9 LIVE TV PRESS STATEMENT

Good afternoon.

Today, an indictment was unsealed charging Donald J. Trump with felony violations of our national security laws as well as participating in a conspiracy to obstruct justice.

This indictment was voted by a grand jury of citizens in the Southern District of Florida, and I invite everyone to read it in full to understand the scope and the gravity of the crimes charged.

The men and women of the United States intelligence community and our armed forces dedicate their lives to protecting our nation and its people. Our laws that protect national defense information are critical to the safety and security of the United States and they must be enforced. Violations of those laws put our country at risk.

Adherence to the rule of law is a bedrock principle of the Department of Justice. And our nation’s commitment to the rule of law sets an example for the world. We have one set of laws in this country, and they apply to everyone. Applying those laws. Collecting facts.

That’s what determines the outcome of an investigation. Nothing more. Nothing less.

The prosecutors in my office are among the most talented and experienced in the Department of Justice. They have investigated this case hewing to the highest ethical standards. And they will continue to do so as this case proceeds.

It’s very important for me to note that the defendants in this case must be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. To that end, my office will seek a speedy trial in this matter. Consistent with the public interest and the rights of the accused. We very much look forward to presenting our case to a jury of citizens in the Southern District of Florida.

In conclusion. I would like to thank the dedicated public servants of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, with whom my office is conducting this investigation and who worked tirelessly every day upholding the rule of law in our country. I’m deeply proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with them.

Thank you very much.—Jack Smith, USDOJ

 

UPDATE

 

"Challenge to democracy?"
 

My ongoing riffs on "Deliberation Science," anyone?

__________