Yes it’s not like Trump has paid multimillion dollars in fines and settlements and forced to shut down his foundation or won any cases regarding his claims of voter fraud.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-stro...blic-opinion-trump-80cd7480?mod=hp_opin_pos_1 A Strong Trump Indictment—but Is It Strong Enough? The evidence against the former president is powerful, but the jurors aren’t the only ones who will need convincing. By Alan M. Dershowitz June 11, 2023 at 12:51 pm ET Special counsel Jack Smith is both confident in his case against Donald Trumpand sensitive to political considerations—though those considerations are subtler than the kind of partisan advantage that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg is after. That’s why Mr. Smith brought the charges in Florida. He thinks the case is strong enough that a jury will convict Mr. Trump even in a jurisdiction of diverse party affiliations. His confidence may also explain why he alleged that Mr. Trump willfully rather than negligently mishandled classified material. He might also have wanted to distinguish Mr. Trump’s case from those of Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Mike Pence, none of which allegedly involved willfulness. What should have begun as a routine civil investigation under the Presidential Records Act has ended up with a multicount criminal indictment, the first federal prosecution ever of a former president or a leading candidate for the presidency. This is partially because prosecutors targeted Mr. Trump and partially because of the unwise way he responded. Mr. Bragg campaigned for his office on a promise to hold Mr. Trump accountable and delivered when he persuaded a grand jury to hand up a weak indictment. Mr. Smith was appointed specifically to investigate Mr. Trump, and he did his job well. The problem inheres in the office of special counsel, which by its nature selects its target and looks for evidence against him. Mr. Smith had a lot of help from Mr. Trump. Had the former president cooperated with investigators and immediately returned all the classified material in his possession, as Messrs. Biden and Pence did, charges would have been unlikely. But Mr. Trump did what he always does. He attacked Mr. Smith and resisted his efforts. That provoked investigators to double down, which in turn led Mr. Trump to engage in the allegedly obstructive conduct that forms the basis for several counts in the indictment. Mr. Smith subpoenaed Mr. Trump’s lawyers and persuaded a judge that Mr. Trump had vitiated the attorney-client privilege by instructing them that it would be “better if there are no documents.” The defense team will claim that Mr. Trump was entitled to maintain possession of classified material under the Presidential Records Act of 1978, which establishes detailed procedures for handling the records of former presidents and a civil process for resolving disputes about them. It doesn’t carry criminal penalties for noncompliance. Remarkably, the indictment never mentions the Presidential Records Act, despite its apparent relevance to any possible prosecution under the Espionage Act of 1917. The indictment quotes tape-recorded conversations that form the basis for several charges under the Espionage Act. The critical recording is of a conversation between Mr. Trump, a writer, a publisher and two Trump staffers, who were discussing a claim that a senior military official had persuaded Mr. Trump not to order an attack on “country A,” which in context is surely Iran. Mr. Trump points to some papers he found and tells his guests they prove that military officials supported an attack. “This totally wins my case,” he says. “This is secret information. Look, look at this.” Mr. Trump then says: “See, as president I could have declassified it. . . . Now I can’t, you know, but this is still a secret.” It is possible that Mr. Trump merely waved the papers in front of his guests and never gave them an opportunity to read them, which is apparently not in evidence because the prosecutors don’t have the document. But even those hypothetical facts would be enough to support the charge of willfully possessing classified material in an unauthorized manner. The reason this recording is so powerful is that it is self-proving. It doesn’t rely on testimony by flipped witnesses or antagonists of Mr. Trump. It is the kind of evidence every defense lawyer dreads and every prosecutor dreams about. This is particularly important because an appellate court could find legal error in the ruling that Mr. Trump had vitiated attorney-client confidentiality and reverse convictions based on his lawyers’ compelled testimony. A conviction that rests on a consensually recorded conversation would be harder to challenge. Mr. Smith has made a stronger case against Mr. Trump than many observers, including me, expected. The question remains: Is it strong enough to justify an indictment of the leading candidate to challenge the president in next year’s election? Even with the recorded statements, this case isn’t nearly as strong as the one that led to President Richard Nixon’s resignation in 1974. Nixon was almost certainly guilty of destroying evidence, bribing witnesses and other acts of obstruction. Many of the charges in this case are matters of degree. Nor have prosecutors any evidence that Mr. Trump’s actions damaged national security more than those of Mr. Biden, Mr. Pence and Mrs. Clinton did. When an incumbent administration prosecutes the leading candidate against the president, it should have a case that is so compelling that it attracts the kind of bipartisan support that forced Nixon to resign. No such support is currently apparent, since many Republicans continue to be troubled by the targeting of Mr. Trump. Mr. Smith will have to convince not only a Miami jury but the American public, on both sides of the partisan divide. Mr. Dershowitz is a professor emeritus at Harvard Law School and author of “Get Trump: The Threat to Civil Liberties, Due Process and Our Constitutional Rule of Law.” He represented Mr. Trump during his 2020 impeachment trial. Appeared in the June 12, 2023, print edition as 'A Strong Indictment—but Is It Strong Enough?'.
I had a similar discussion with some friends along the same line yesterday. They basically said that they don’t bother with this issue because they’ve given up convincing people who won’t think rationally. I agree and as we see here there are many who simply reject the evidence and won’t think rationally. The problem with just saying we’re not going to engage because we’re never going to convince all people is that we live in marketplace of ideas and the nature of politics is about public debate and persuasion. It’s not about convincing all people but it is about convincing enough people. Im not going to pretend that Clutchfans D&D is such an important forum as to sway the US electorate in any way. What Clutchfans D&D is though is a microcosm of debates that are playing our throughout the country. Whether we end up convincing each other is less important than maybe something discussed or learned here is carried out to discussions in our wider lives.
I’m listening to Marco Rubio and he’s saying that the indictment shouldn’t have been brought becaue it’s divisive and is saying because people are threatening the judges. If this defense is that threatening judges is grounds for not bringing indictments then mob bosses or anyone else who threatens a judge should never be indicted. This is another example of the hollowness of the defenses of Trump.
Now I see where some posters got Sandy Berger from as Rubio also mentioned Sandy Berger. saying he was only charged with a misdemeanor forgetting that Berger did plea guilty which likely spared him a more serious charge.
Except when you say it shouldn’t have been brought. also when you cite threats against judges as a reason for not bringing it
again, arguing that an indictment "shouldn't have been brought" is not the same as "a defense of Trump"
So I suppose then when Trump lawyers make that argument they aren’t really defending Trump. The US legal system is an oppositional system. An argument, especially by a non prosecutor, that a case shouldn’t be brought is a defense.
His supporters will never waver, his mouthpieces will go on every show and spew lies and half-truths to distract from the truth, most of his base will fall for the lies or they actually do know its true and simply don't care. trump will try and drag this out in hopes he wins and then he can squash this or one of his rivals will pardon him. IMO this case is fairly simple, the facts are strong and they have excellent witnesses. The gym jordans of the world can go on shows and spew lies, knowing dam well that he is lying. The whole trump drama will play out over the next year, I only hope the judge who presides over the case will act swiftly and get this case under way for the good of the people. During a trial his supporters will have to painstakingly watch the treasonous acts of the 45th president of the unites states and then they will have to answer to themselves as to why they fought for this man, but even if he is guilty the majority of his base wont care which is so sad
it's a simple point: arguing that a course of action should not be pursued because of its practical consequences is a prudential argument, not a moral one. "Defending Trump" is a moral argument: no more, no less. On the difference between prudential and moral arguments/reasons: https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/34623/chapter-abstract/295013452?redirectedFrom=fulltext
Turley: Donald Trump’s Indictment Case has a Looming 2024 End Date https://jonathanturley.org/2023/06/12/doj-fatigue-is-special-counsel-smith-singing-to-an-empty-room/
Trump's former AG, the one who had white-wash a summary of the Mueller report to protect orange Hair, says Trump's indictment is 'very damning' if 'even half of it is true' Barr says Trump may be 'toast' and his witch hunt defense won't work "This idea of presenting Trump as a victim here--the victim of a witch hunt--is ridiculous. Yes, he's been a victim in the past. Yes his adversaries have obsessively pursued him with phony claims, and I've been at his side defending him when he is a victim, but this is much different. He's not a victim here," Barr added. "He was totally wrong that he had the right to have those documents. Those documents are among the most sensitive secrets the country has."
part 2 https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/06/six-theses-on-the-trump-indictment-part-2.php an hour ago Six theses on the Trump indictment, part 2 by Scott Johnson JUNE 12, 2023 I concluded “Six theses on the Trump indictment” with this thought: “Smith’s indictment reflects both President Biden’s desire to run for reelection against Trump and the insuperable difficulties Trump’s candidacy poses for the Republican Party. When it comes to Trump’s accusation of ‘election-interference,’ Trump is right in more ways than one.” I want to expand on that proposition with six more. • If the Biden team didn’t want to run against President Trump, Trump would not have been indicted by the Biden Department of Justice. • Whoever does the calculating for Biden makes this calculation. They calculate that the indictment will have a predictable effect on Trump supporters and other Republicans participating in the primaries to come. Trump supporters and other Republican votes will rally to Trump against the continuing “special treatment” of Trump by a law enforcement authorities and their two-track system of justice. • At the same time the indictment complicates and weakens Trump’s general election candidacy. It makes him an unelectable presidential candidate even against a corrupt and compromised nullity such as Biden. • As a bonus, from the perspective of the Biden team, a Trump general election candidacy enhances Democrat prospects to retake the House and weakens Republican prospects for picking up Senate seats. • I can’t imagine a single voter who will change his 2020 vote from Biden to Trump. On the contrary, Trump will lose more decisively this time around. • Trump cannot win a general election campaign. That is why Biden and his team relish the prospect of running against Trump. They can run another basement campaign on behalf of a senescent fool.
yes it is. its also a call to not follow the rule of law because of the threat of violence. i thought america didnt give in to terrorists and their demands, but many in this country including little marco want us to do just that.
When biden was in congress he said at that time that Ford pardoning Nixon was wrong and destroyed the democratic party in short term. Folks should do some reading. Not prosecuting crime when it's evident it's done in the name of bipartisanship is more toxic than the prosecution. Biden being a old geezer has its pros that he sees what has worked and what hasn't.
history has been much kinder to Ford's decision and once again in hindsight we have more evidence of Biden's poor judgment
Barr's a frontrunner. He's always trying to join the team in the ascendancy. I don't take his remarks as, 'even Trump's ally Bill Barr thinks he's guilty!' I take it as Barr looking after his own self regardless of the facts. If he had any chance of getting another appointment (he's too old, one, and his refusal to abet Trump's coup attempt won't be forgiven, two), he'd probably have a different opinion.
I disagree with Biden there. Nixon resigned. We didn't need to drag the country through all the mud, given all the problems it was facing at the time. If Trump were to voluntarily admit guilt or behave much better toward our laws and norms, I would also support non-prosecution or even a pardon to just move on. However, considering his lawlessness and behavior, it's a mistake to allow that to stand without accountability.
