Trump loses in court...again.

[Sandy Shanks]

Now that the election is over, things are moving along rather nicely. Beginning with the mid-terms themselves, the American people and the courts are rejecting Trump and the Republican Party.

CNN reports, "A federal judge has ordered former top Trump White House lawyers to provide additional grand jury testimony, rejecting former President Donald Trump’s privilege claims in the Justice Department’s criminal investigation of his effort to overturn the 2020 election, people briefed on the matter said.

"Pat Cipollone, the Trump White House counsel, and his deputy, Patrick Philbin, appeared in September before the grand jury in Washington, DC, as part of the Justice Department probe, which is now being overseen by newly appointed special counsel Jack Smith.

"Cipollone and Philbin declined to answer some questions at that time, citing Trump’s claims of executive and attorney-client privilege.

"The privilege claims have been the subject of an ongoing legal fight in secret proceedings before the Washington federal judge overseeing the grand jury.

"The judge has similarly rejected Trump’s privilege claims for other witnesses, including top aides to former Vice President Mike Pence. Marc Short and Greg Jacob provided a second round of grand jury testimony after the judge ordered them to answer additional questions as part of the January 6-related probe."

It would appear that the American people and the courts do not approve of a President who leads a coup to overthrow the elected government and then steals classified documents. They also reject the political party that endorses that President.

 

[jnug]

You guys are posting like this ended it. I presume there might be further delay as it's appealed to the Supreme Court?

They are likely offer much in the way of delay. They will either:
- decline to hear it
- dispense with it very quickly

Cannon had nothing. Sending it to her courtroom was a Trumpian scam from the start. This will either be no ruling by the SC or a one pager.

 

[Chomsky]

I don't think that's how it works. They're not going to sit there saying, should we indict or not, well hey he's running so ya we should, otherwise, let's not care about the evidence and not indict. He's getting indicted, period, and would if he ran or not. The appointment of a special counsel is what was influenced by Biden and traitor trump declaring they're running.

Regardless of SC or not, Garland would have to sign-off on indictments - would he not?

--

I believe the theory I presented above could be plausible. It's based upon the assumption that DOJ would like to not prosecute at all costs. It also assumes Garland's first & highest priority is to the country, before the case.

So given the above, DOJ may be reticent to indict, but will if Trump runs and they feel the need to protect the country - which is their highest priority.

The above is just a theory, but I could see it playing-out.

 

[Craig234]

Regardless of SC or not, Garland would have to sign-off on indictments - would he not?

Yes.

I believe the theory I presented above could be plausible. It's based upon the assumption that DOJ would like to not prosecute at all costs. It also assumes Garland's first & highest priority is to the country, before the case.

It's not DoJ's job to not prosecute at all costs. They're going to prosecute. The country and the case are not in conflict here, they are aligned.

 

[Chomsky]

Yes.

Thanks.

t's not DoJ's job to not prosecute at all costs. They're going to prosecute. The country and the case are not in conflict here, they are aligned.

The theory here is DOJ was the only tool left to get the docs back. And that unless Trump had nefarious intent, they really don't want to prosecute. The evidence of violation of statute is apparent to all observers. The intent is not know (to us).

Given the above and that it appears there is evidence of broken statute by Trump's mere possession of the materials, if Trump runs Garland will default to his highest priority - which is what's in the best interests of the country. Trump legally possessing & controlling our state secrets again would pose an unacceptable risk to the country, so Garland will be obligated to step up with any charges currently applicable.

Conversely, if Trump hadn't run, and he had no nefarious intent, Garland might not want to put the country through prosecution. Garland is not simply a prosecutor who addresses cases on their merits. He is an Administration Cabinet Official, empowered with promoting the best interests of the country. We need to remember that.

Anyway, that's the theory. I can't say it's prognosis, nor can I speak to it's degree of likelihood. But, I do find it interesting - and perhaps even plausible. Which is why I put it out there. Of course if Garland simply follows the recommendation of the SC, I wouldn't be surprised either.

But straight-up, I'm giving the chance of a Trump indictment in this case at 50-50 at best. If anything, less.

 

[Craig234]

The theory here is DOJ was the only tool left to get the docs back. And that unless Trump had nefarious intent, they really don't want to prosecute. The evidence of violation of statute is apparent to all observers. The intent is not know (to us).

You're only looking at the document crimes. On those, proving intent does seem to be an important part of the case.

Given the above and that it appears there is evidence of broken statute by Trump's mere possession of the materials, if Trump runs Garland will default to his highest priority - which is what's in the best interests of the country. Trump legally possessing & controlling our state secrets again would pose an unacceptable risk to the country, so Garland will be obligated to step up with any charges currently applicable.

I don't think that makes a lot of sense. The elements of the case are crimes by traitor trump out of office. If he were re-elected, he would legally have access again; that should have no bearing on the criminal charges of what he did out of office. The role of DoJ is to prosecute a crime, not to use prosecution to protect the country from bad candidates.

Conversely, if Trump hadn't run, and he had no nefarious intent, Garland might not want to put the country through prosecution. Garland is not simply a prosecutor who addresses cases on their merits. He is an Administration Cabinet Official, empowered with promoting the best interests of the country. We need to remember that.

To repeat, the interests of the country and prosecuting traitor trump for his crimes are aligned, not in conflict. It does raise the bar for having a solid case, but the national interest is to prosecute. Garland knows that.

But straight-up, I'm giving the chance of a Trump indictment in this case at 50-50 at best. If anything, less.

I put the odds of some charges against trump close to 100%.

 

[Buckeyes85]

Conversely, if Trump hadn't run, and he had no nefarious intent, Garland might not want to put the country through prosecution. Garland is not simply a prosecutor who addresses cases on their merits. He is an Administration Cabinet Official, empowered with promoting the best interests of the country. We need to remember that.

Anyway, that's the theory. I can't say it's prognosis, nor can I speak to it's degree of likelihood. But, I do find it interesting - and perhaps even plausible. Which is why I put it out there. Of course if Garland simply follows the recommendation of the SC, I wouldn't be surprised either.

But straight-up, I'm giving the chance of a Trump indictment in this case at 50-50 at best. If anything, less.

Prosecuting winnable cases on their merits is Garland's job and that coincides with the best interests of the country.
We are not dealing with a trivial infraction of some arcane laws.

And I totally disagree that Trump running or not running should have any consideration. That makes the whole thing political. And I also disagree with the "nefarious intent" angle. That may have been good reason not to prosecute had Trump turned over the documents the first, 2nd, 3rd 4th time asked; or when he responded to a subpoena- and lied about it. He didn't.

I will put his odds at being indicted at just shy of 100%, if for nothing else then the obstruction charge. He HAS to be indicted on that or there is no point for the DOJ to every prosecute anybody for obstruction again.

 

[Chomsky]

Prosecuting winnable cases on their merits is Garland's job and that coincides with the best interests of the country.
We are not dealing with a trivial infraction of some arcane laws.

I'm saying with those two facets (case merits / countries best interest), Garland will weight the latter firstly in every case. That's his job. He's not a prosecutor. He's Director of DOJ, a cabinet member. His job is to look-out for the bests interests of the country.

Now it's fair to debate what might be in the country's best interest. But not where Garland's priority lies relative promoting & defending the best interests of the it.

And I totally disagree that Trump running or not running should have any consideration. That makes the whole thing political. And I also disagree with the "nefarious intent" angle. That may have been good reason not to prosecute had Trump turned over the documents the first, 2nd, 3rd 4th time asked; or when he responded to a subpoena- and lied about it. He didn't.

Well we have our opinions, and I'll respect yours. I'm not sure I buy it either, but I found it an interesting theory.

I will put his odds at being indicted at just shy of 100%, if for nothing else then the obstruction charge. He HAS to be indicted on that or there is no point for the DOJ to every prosecute anybody for obstruction again.

They didn't prosecute Trump for Obstruction all the other times under Mueller, did they?

Besides the political aspects at stake, there's also a lot of Constitutional issues at play. Because of this, I'm still thinking maybe 50-50. If I had faith in the early theory I tossed out above, I'd go higher. But I see the theory as plausible, but more a matter of interest.

Anyway, well see. I'm often enough wrong. I enjoy conjecture, but surely have no crystal ball.

 

[justabubba]

Given the theory of a poly-sci guy close to me, whose opinion I value, he believes a Trump run would likely force the DOJ's hand to indict in order to protect the nation.

that would be unjustifiable. undemocratic
we elect the representatives we deserve
the implication of your poli-sci guy is that the DoJ - not the will of the American voters - is the more appropriate entity to decide whether tRump is good for America

 

[IQ57]

Appeals court dismisses mar-a-lago special master. When it rains, it pours. Trump is going to beat his poor victim card to death in the coming days.

We’ve been waiting 6+ yrs.

This time for sure, right?

TDS is fake news, right?

 

[justabubba]

We’ve been waiting 6+ yrs.

glad you didn't hold your breath

This time for sure, right?

could be. let's see what the DoJ has to say with a little help from the findings of theJ6 committee

TDS is fake news, right?

wrong. as you prove, tRump devotion syndrome is a real thing