Trump predicts imminent arrest, calls for protests - Sound familiar?

[StringJunky]

19 minutes ago, geordief said:

I was reading that to have more than one case on the go makes life more difficult  for the defense lawyers.

The defendant has to show his or her hand in the earlier cases whereas the prosecution  in the later cases start from scratch and with the benefit of the earlier disclosures.

I read it in Politico that Trump's lawyers will be playing 3D chess vs each prosecutor who will playing the straight board.

[iNow]

More precisely, Trumps lawyers will be trying to convince us there is no board at all. 

[NTuft]

On 3/30/2023 at 8:24 PM, iNow said:

Of course he did. 

It seems they have far more damaging documentation than just the Cohen testimony so this may be moot. 
 

He’s already raised over $2M since announcing he’d be arrested last Tuesday and I’m sure he and his minions will bilk his hordes out of at least $10M more just this weekend given the announcement today. 

 

On 4/1/2023 at 9:05 AM, Janus said:

It seems highly unlikely that a Grand Jury would make the unprecedented move to indict a former President on over 30 counts if all they had to go on was the testimony of one witness.   Of course, we won't know exactly what the charges are until  he is arraigned.  One commentator  has suggested that this may go beyond the hush money case, as he can't see how that, by itself, could be stretched into more than 8 separated charges.

Should be interesting. As far as I know, the Stormy Daniel's payoff may've involved moving campaign contribution money, hence should've been picked up and run by Federal attorneys. Wtih capabilities to indict a ham sandwich, a narcissistic Orangutan should've been duck soup. What this case is doing filed in New York looks like wait and see material. Hopefully soon.

If they don't have it nailed down, it's a 'Uge nothing-burger', and he walks without time, I think it's a huge mistake.

[Janus]

20 hours ago, NTuft said:

 

Should be interesting. As far as I know, the Stormy Daniel's payoff may've involved moving campaign contribution money, hence should've been picked up and run by Federal attorneys. Wtih capabilities to indict a ham sandwich, a narcissistic Orangutan should've been duck soup. What this case is doing filed in New York looks like wait and see material. Hopefully soon.

If they don't have it nailed down, it's a 'Uge nothing-burger', and he walks without time, I think it's a huge mistake.

Back when this investigation started, the feds did step in and and told the New York to back off and they'd handle it. Of course that was back during the time that Bill Barr headed the DOJ.  The same Bill Barr that heavily redacted the Mueller report to shield Trump.  In other words: "We'll handle it meant, we'll make sure nothing is done about it.".

The present DOJ has it hands full with the documents and Jan. 5th investigations, so I'm sure they fine with letting New York handle this one. 

[TheVat]

The potential RICO charge in Georgia seems like potentially the biggest one, in terms of raw criminality and of having incriminating evidence.  Or perhaps tied with the potential treason charge at Mar-a-Lago where he allegedly showed top secret documents to foreign visitors.  Those could bring some serious jail time.  

(btw, anyone else have this weird urge to buy discount airline tickets?)

 

[swansont]

31 minutes ago, Janus said:

Back when this investigation started, the feds did step in and and told the New York to back off and they'd handle it. Of course that was back during the time that Bill Barr headed the DOJ.  The same Bill Barr that heavily redacted the Mueller report to shield Trump.  In other words: "We'll handle it meant, we'll make sure nothing is done about it.".

The present DOJ has it hands full with the documents and Jan. 5th investigations, so I'm sure they fine with letting New York handle this one. 

There can be state election law violation, and federal. The state prosecution might help the federal, and some facts are already out there from the Cohen conviction. There’s no legal question that some of the crimes were committed. 

[mistermack]

Donald Trump can't have just suddenly developed this attitude of fixing things with a payoff. He must have been doing it successfully for decades, you don't start from nowhere. 

I wonder if he's got a little black book, of all the people he's paid off in the last fifty years? Imagine the carnage, if he goes down, and decides to take them all with him !

[toucana]

3 hours ago, TheVat said:

The potential RICO charge in Georgia seems like potentially the biggest one, in terms of raw criminality and of having incriminating evidence.  Or perhaps tied with the potential treason charge at Mar-a-Lago where he allegedly showed top secret documents to foreign visitors.  Those could bring some serious jail time.  

(btw, anyone else have this weird urge to buy discount airline tickets?)

 

It made a change from Russian language spam for porn, Viagra, and fake Rolex watches that used to be a regular feature of other forums I have posted on.

The DOJ Mar-a-Lago investigators are also said to be looking into claims that FPOTUS defendant Trump showed highly classified documents and maps to political sponsors. That can be construed as selling classified information under the 1917 Espionage Act.

[NTuft]

On 4/5/2023 at 6:37 AM, Janus said:

Back when this investigation started, the feds did step in and and told the New York to back off and they'd handle it. Of course that was back during the time that Bill Barr headed the DOJ.  The same Bill Barr that heavily redacted the Mueller report to shield Trump.  In other words: "We'll handle it meant, we'll make sure nothing is done about it.".

The present DOJ has it hands full with the documents and Jan. 5th investigations, so I'm sure they fine with letting New York handle this one. 

I don't recall Barr going out of his way to help Trump, but I don't have all those details. The DOJ has a lot of hands, some of them are busy continuing to shield likely Federal incitement of Jan. 6th, and 'deleting' communications about destroying evidence and violating client-attorney privilege by 'hiding' columns in spreadsheets, with said criminal evidence handed from prosecutors to defense then appallingly barred from admission save for one iota. The hush money payment looks analogous to the misdemeanor crime H.R. Clinton had to pay a fine on for financing the Steele Dossier.

On 4/5/2023 at 7:08 AM, TheVat said:

The potential RICO charge in Georgia seems like potentially the biggest one, in terms of raw criminality and of having incriminating evidence.  Or perhaps tied with the potential treason charge at Mar-a-Lago where he allegedly showed top secret documents to foreign visitors.  Those could bring some serious jail time.  

(btw, anyone else have this weird urge to buy discount airline tickets?)

 

So you think that'll be RICO-federal, or a GBI case? It looks like all 34 New York charges are on falsifying business records, and were bumped to felonies for being done in context of another crime. Unclear what that other crime is yet. DOJ pursuing Federal obstruction of justice charges related to non-compliance with document recovery at Mar-A-Lago. I'll have to look around for info on showing off secret documents to foreigners, that is a bombshell if true.

On 4/5/2023 at 7:12 AM, swansont said:

There can be state election law violation, and federal. The state prosecution might help the federal, and some facts are already out there from the Cohen conviction. There’s no legal question that some of the crimes were committed. 

Still unclear what other crime New York is claiming bumps the counts up to Class E felonies. From what's been disclosed, I don't even think this is couched as an election law violation, rather fraudulent business practices.

On 4/5/2023 at 10:57 AM, toucana said:

It made a change from Russian language spam for porn, Viagra, and fake Rolex watches that used to be a regular feature of other forums I have posted on.

The DOJ Mar-a-Lago investigators are also said to be looking into claims that FPOTUS defendant Trump showed highly classified documents and maps to political sponsors. That can be construed as selling classified information under the 1917 Espionage Act.

It occurred to me that swansont and Phi For All are probably enjoying such soft targets here on the board. I thought it was showing documents to foreigners, but like I said I'll have to look into that, I'm not familiar with that. I have read that they are pursuing obstruction of justice charges for how the document recovery was handled.

Edited April 6, 2023 by NTuft
spellingx2

[TheVat]

11 minutes ago, NTuft said:

So you think that'll be RICO-federal, or a GBI case?

 AFAIK, RICO cases often extend beyond the investigating state, and involve multiple parties - I'm not sure who all would be charged (Rudy G?) or if Willis would handshake with the feds on this.  

IIRC, the federal RICO statute lists both offenses that are federally prosecutable and also ones that can be at the state level.  Some states go on to clarify further or expand on the state offenses by passing their own RICO statutes.  

[swansont]

2 hours ago, NTuft said:

Still unclear what other crime New York is claiming bumps the counts up to Class E felonies. From what's been disclosed, I don't even think this is couched as an election law violation, rather fraudulent business practices.

What I read was that basing fraudulent documents on other fraudulent documents makes it a felony. But IANAL. And the payments were not disclosed, making it an election law violation.

Cohen was convicted of federal campaign law violations, so I don’t think that latter part is in question

edit: "intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof." is the felony. The further crime presumably being election law violation

 

2 hours ago, NTuft said:

The hush money payment looks analogous to the misdemeanor crime H.R. Clinton had to pay a fine on for financing the Steele Dossier.

The main difference being one was not reported and the other one was, but not properly described. So not really analogous, IMO

On 4/5/2023 at 10:25 AM, mistermack said:

Donald Trump can't have just suddenly developed this attitude of fixing things with a payoff. He must have been doing it successfully for decades, you don't start from nowhere. 

I think the broader category is fixing it with lawyers, because you can bully people with lawsuits and pay to delay lawsuits brought against you. That would include NDAs. Works well with civil law. But, as Chris Hayes pointed out yesterday, this is criminal law, and the rules and tactics are different 

[NTuft]

4 hours ago, swansont said:

The main difference being one was not reported and the other one was, but not properly described. So not really analogous, IMO

Trump's lawyer used an LLC to make the payment, Clinton paid Perkins Coie to pay Fusion GPS. I don't know the details on what Cohen's said, so I don't see how it's related to campaign finance at this point, unless this business fraud is somehow tied together with campaign funds.

Edited April 7, 2023 by NTuft

[iNow]

7 hours ago, NTuft said:

Still unclear what other crime New York is claiming bumps the counts up to Class E felonies

It’s because this crime was committed specifically in the furtherance of other crimes. The crimes were being bootstrapped, consequently now the charges can be too. 

7 hours ago, NTuft said:

I don't even think this is couched as an election law violation, rather fraudulent business practices.

Correct. The election law violations are coming from the state of Georgia, but just weren’t yet ready to have their day in court. NY was just ready to present their case sooner.

There’s also then the federal issues with January 6 and top secret document stealing being pursued by special prosecutors.  

Edited April 7, 2023 by iNow

[NTuft]

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

Correct. The election law violations are coming from the state of Georgia, but just weren’t yet ready to have their day in court. NY was just ready to present their case sooner.

There’s also then the federal issues with January 6 and too secret document stealing being pursued by special prosecutors.

I heard there was a Federal attorney who resigned in Georgia rather than be strongarmed by what FPOTUS or his team were asking. And there was a call to Raffensberger IIRC trying to coerce votes or not certify the election.. Sorry, yeah I ought to read more on this. Again, if that issue with showing classified documents to donors or foreign nationals is real, that seems like the potential nail in the coffin.

[iNow]

15 minutes ago, NTuft said:

if that issue with showing classified documents to donors or foreign nationals is real, that seems like the potential nail in the coffin.

That would certainly add to the weight of the case, yes. However, they also have video evidence of his team removing documents to hide and keep them AFTER they’d already been subpoenaed, apparently after he specifically ordered them to do so. 

So in addition to the obvious national security implications, that also makes it an easy obstruction of justice charge. 

So many commenters and talking heads keep saying this is all only happening bc he’s Trump, which is half true bc anyone else who had done these things would’ve been locked up already long ago. The law should apply equally to all, but he’s been given special treatment at every turn. 

[swansont]

13 hours ago, NTuft said:

Trump's lawyer used an LLC to make the payment, Clinton paid Perkins Coie to pay Fusion GPS. I don't know the details on what Cohen's said, so I don't see how it's related to campaign finance at this point, unless this business fraud is somehow tied together with campaign funds.

The details are readily available, so pleading ignorance isn’t very persuasive.

[Janus]

22 hours ago, NTuft said:

I don't recall Barr going out of his way to help Trump, but I don't have all those details

 

https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-ap-top-news-politics-russia-reggie-walton-fe8eee387b53888c478a24021fc101aa

 

[NTuft]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

The details are readily available, so pleading ignorance isn’t very persuasive.

What I'm arguing is that the research too was paid for using lawyers as a screen to pay a private company for campaign adjacent activities. It was improperly described precisely because they wanted what was oppo research to appear independent. The hush money was not disclosed because that's the point there, being extorted by two parties to silence their disclosures. Neither one was disclosed and both involved lawyers's fees as fronts to hide payments.
 

Quote

Cohen pleaded guilty to violating federal campaign finance law in connection with the payments. Federal prosecutors say the payments amounted to illegal, unreported assistance to Trump’s campaign. But they declined to file charges against Trump himself. 
[...]
Legal experts say a case could be made that Trump falsified business records by logging Cohen’s reimbursement for the Daniels payment as legal fees. But that’s only a misdemeanor under New York law — unless prosecutors could prove he falsified records to conceal another crime.
The New York hush-money probe of Donald Trump explained

So a smidgen more transparency with HC, it having been tied in and reported as part of the campaign's finances, whereas the two pay-outs for DT were mocked up as business deals--it being a campaign finance violation apparently is not sticking, as the charges are for fraudulent business practices. Some similarity if not entirely analogous. More to develop, thought, and from the AP article there is money going back and forth between Cohen and the Trump organization, which may muddy the waters.

 

 

52 minutes ago, Janus said:

https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-ap-top-news-politics-russia-reggie-walton-fe8eee387b53888c478a24021fc101aa

Quote

WASHINGTON (CN) — BuzzFeed News was handed a partial victory from the D.C. Circuit on Tuesday when the federal appeals court ordered the Department of Justice to release additional information from the agency’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

The dispute is one of many involving the DOJ’s handling of the release of information related to the controversial two-year investigation by then-Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

U.S. Circuit Judge Karen L. Henderson wrote in Tuesday's opinion that the portions of the Mueller report that the D.C. Circuit is ordering the government to unredact might not shine much light on anything new. 

“The factual circumstances surrounding this portion of the investigation are already publicly available in the unredacted portions of the report,” the George W. Bush appointee wrote in the 18-page opinion, noting that the soon-to-be-released sections detail how Mueller “carried out his duties to investigate and prosecute criminal conduct.” 

Still, Henderson said the disclosure would offer insight into how the DOJ “interpreted the relevant law and applied it to already public facts” before failing to find enough evidence to link former President Donald Trump or his campaign to any illegal activity. 

Other information requested by the plaintiffs – the Electronic Privacy Information Center, which was not involved in the appeal, along with BuzzFeed and its senior investigative reporter Jason Leopold – will remain redacted. 

According to Henderson, these sections will stay behind black ink because the people mentioned in them are not public figures and were not charged with crimes, and therefore retain a higher level of privacy.

“The privacy interests relating to individuals investigated for but not charged with making false statements remain significant,” she wrote, before noting that the appeals court's own in-camera review suggested those details would be “highly stigmatizing.” 

“We therefore conclude that their substantial privacy interests tip the scale in favor of nondisclosure for this category of material,” she added. 

Henderson was joined on the unanimous three-judge panel by U.S. Circuit Judges David Tatel and Harry Edwards, appointed by Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, respectively.  

Leopold took to Twitter to celebrate the ruling, calling it a “massive win" and suggesting it would reveal new information about Donald Trump Jr.

"Just a huge win for transparency and the public's right to know," he tweeted.

A regular submitter of Freedom of Information Act requests and filer of lawsuits when those requests fail to be properly addressed, Leopold noted the uniqueness of an appeals court reversing in a case like this.

“You just rarely see this kind of decision and they note the significant public interest behind it,” he said.

Mark Schoofs, editor-in-chief of BuzzFeed News, similarly applauded the court’s decision, calling it a “huge legal victory both for BuzzFeed and champions of government transparency.”

Attempts to reach the Department of Justice and the Electronic Privacy Information Center for comment were not returned by press time.

Tuesday's ruling comes after several court battles hoping to peel back blank spots in the Mueller report.  

The lower court’s order calling for an in-camera review came after then-Attorney General William Barr made public statements clearing Trump of any guilt prior to the report’s release. He said in part that the evidence Mueller gathered "does not establish that the president was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference."

But Mueller said in a letter following Barr's statement that his team reached the decision to not charge Trump for obstruction of justice in part due to thorny constitutional questions surrounding the indictment of a sitting president. He then went a step further and said that if the investigation had clearly shown Trump did not obstruct justice, he "would so state."

"The inconsistencies between Attorney General Barr's statements, made at a time when the public did not have access to the redacted version of the Mueller report to assess the veracity of his statements, and portions of the redacted version of the Mueller report that conflict with those statements, cause the court to seriously question whether Attorney General Barr made a calculated attempt to influence public discourse about the Mueller report in favor of President Trump despite certain findings in the redacted version of the Mueller report to the contrary," U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton wrote in a 23-page opinion in March 2020.

The case will now return to the lower court for Walton to order the release of the unredacted pages.

Apparently Judge Walton made those statements because he was in the dark--he didn't think Barr could say what he did without having read the whole thing himself, which seems fair. The reporting here says that the portions that remained redacted, after having reviewed the whole report, were sections on people being investigated for false statements who hadn't done such, i.e. they were slandered at some point in.. whatever it was the Mueller probe was based on. Walton may've claimed that before he hadn't read the report, but that claim seems to have fizzled over time and by my read Barr was correct. That last bolded paragraph statement by Walton doesn't make a lot of sense--it's from the same 23-page order where he requested the unredacted report, and yet he's already claiming the redacted material is contrary to Barr's statements? Walton's claim fizzled out.

[swansont]

51 minutes ago, NTuft said:

What I'm arguing is that the research too was paid for using lawyers as a screen to pay a private company for campaign adjacent activities. It was improperly described precisely because they wanted what was oppo research to appear independent.

Paid for using a lawyer isn’t the issue here. Cohen was not convicted for being a lawyer. The issue is falsifying financial documents and not reporting the payments to the FEC.

 

51 minutes ago, NTuft said:

The hush money was not disclosed because that's the point there, being extorted by two parties to silence their disclosures. Neither one was disclosed and both involved lawyers's fees as fronts to hide payments.

 

The Clinton payments were disclosed. Again, this information is readily available. Try and base your arguments on facts.

https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-2022-midterm-elections-business-elections-presidential-elections-5468774d18e8c46f81b55e9260b13e93

“on FEC forms, the Clinton campaign classified the spending as legal services.”

(emphasis added)

Trump did not disclose the payments, and falsified documents to cover it all up.

[MigL]

This is just a 'warm-up', and will not result in jail time.
The election overturning case in Georgia and the federal Jan 6 case are much more likely to actually land him behind bars.
I hope H Clinton has her sign reading "Lock him up" ready to go.

[mistermack]

9 hours ago, MigL said:

This is just a 'warm-up', and will not result in jail time.

It might even result in four more years. I remember when they tried to nail Bill Clinton, the whole thing left such a nasty taste in the mouth, I would have made a stupendous effort to vote him back in if I had the chance. This might well do likewise for Trump. Not for me, I'm in the UK anyway, but for wavering US voters. 

Guilt or lack of it comes well down the consideration list in this kind of situation. It's more of an emotional thing. Will the swing voters feel that it's a plot?, because if they do, they are likely to vote to thwart it. 

[Janus]

21 hours ago, NTuft said:

What I'm arguing is that the research too was paid for using lawyers as a screen to pay a private company for campaign adjacent activities. It was improperly described precisely because they wanted what was oppo research to appear independent. The hush money was not disclosed because that's the point there, being extorted by two parties to silence their disclosures. Neither one was disclosed and both involved lawyers's fees as fronts to hide payments.
 

So a smidgen more transparency with HC, it having been tied in and reported as part of the campaign's finances, whereas the two pay-outs for DT were mocked up as business deals--it being a campaign finance violation apparently is not sticking, as the charges are for fraudulent business practices. Some similarity if not entirely analogous. More to develop, thought, and from the AP article there is money going back and forth between Cohen and the Trump organization, which may muddy the waters.

 

 

Apparently Judge Walton made those statements because he was in the dark--he didn't think Barr could say what he did without having read the whole thing himself, which seems fair. The reporting here says that the portions that remained redacted, after having reviewed the whole report, were sections on people being investigated for false statements who hadn't done such, i.e. they were slandered at some point in.. whatever it was the Mueller probe was based on. Walton may've claimed that before he hadn't read the report, but that claim seems to have fizzled over time and by my read Barr was correct. That last bolded paragraph statement by Walton doesn't make a lot of sense--it's from the same 23-page order where he requested the unredacted report, and yet he's already claiming the redacted material is contrary to Barr's statements? Walton's claim fizzled out.

Did you miss the part where Mueller himself wrote to Barr to complain that Barr was understating the seriousness of the report. How can you say that Barr was correct, when the person who wrote the full report didn't think he was?

And just to touch on something else: While he may have violated Federal campaign laws and could be charged on the Federal level for them, New York has its own campaign laws that he could be charged with violating.  And this isn't an either/or situation.  He could be tried in Federal and State court for the same thing at the same time, if it violates both Federal and State laws.  So, New York can pursue a case, even without a Federal one, unless the Feds come in and assert privilege.

Now, is the New York case the weakest of the major cases against him? Yes.  But, from what I've heard, from people who understand the law better than I do, is that it isn't as weak as they thought it was prior to the charges being revealed.

[NTuft]

On 4/7/2023 at 11:15 AM, swansont said:

Paid for using a lawyer isn’t the issue here. Cohen was not convicted for being a lawyer. The issue is falsifying financial documents and not reporting the payments to the FEC.

The Clinton payments were disclosed. Again, this information is readily available. Try and base your arguments on facts.

https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-2022-midterm-elections-business-elections-presidential-elections-5468774d18e8c46f81b55e9260b13e93

“on FEC forms, the Clinton campaign classified the spending as legal services.”

(emphasis added)

Trump did not disclose the payments, and falsified documents to cover it all up.

It is the issue, because that's where I'm drawing the analogy. I recognize you disagree. The monies were not disclosed for their actual purpose, they were screened as legal fees. So far, the go-between in an extortion scheme and the deceptive reporter have been found in the wrong. I do not know about Cohen's case and yes I'm pleading ignorance. I'm not drawing an analogy between the Cohen and the Clinton campaign cases I'm drawing an analogy between Clinton's campaign paying Fusion GPS and Trump paying Stormy Daniels, obscuring what they were doing by vaguely billing legal fees--paying "fixers".

On 4/8/2023 at 8:36 AM, Janus said:

Did you miss the part where Mueller himself wrote to Barr to complain that Barr was understating the seriousness of the report. How can you say that Barr was correct, when the person who wrote the full report didn't think he was?

I think Barr was giving his opinion, and the result of Mueller's report, despite his opinions, was no actionable fault finding. So I agree with Barr's opinion.

Edited April 10, 2023 by NTuft
added campaign

[swansont]

9 hours ago, NTuft said:

It is the issue, because that's where I'm drawing the analogy. I recognize you disagree. The monies were not disclosed for their actual purpose, they were screened as legal fees. So far, the go-between in an extortion scheme and the deceptive reporter have been found in the wrong. I do not know about Cohen's case and yes I'm pleading ignorance. I'm not drawing an analogy between the Cohen and the Clinton campaign cases I'm drawing an analogy between Clinton's campaign paying Fusion GPS and Trump paying Stormy Daniels, obscuring what they were doing by vaguely billing legal fees--paying "fixers".

Paying a fixer is not what Trump was indicted for, so how is this relevant?

[iNow]

On 4/4/2023 at 11:30 AM, NTuft said:

As far as I know

On 4/6/2023 at 12:55 PM, NTuft said:

I don't recall

On 4/6/2023 at 12:55 PM, NTuft said:

I'll have to look into that, I'm not familiar with that

On 4/6/2023 at 8:08 PM, NTuft said:

I don't know the details

On 4/6/2023 at 8:29 PM, NTuft said:

Sorry, yeah I ought to read more on this

On 4/7/2023 at 12:15 PM, NTuft said:

whatever it was the Mueller probe was based on

11 hours ago, NTuft said:

I do not know about Cohen's case and yes I'm pleading ignorance

Your conclusions seem oddly rigid and unmalleable despite your repeated acknowledgements regarding just how little you've read or understand about what's actually happening here in each of the various cases.

You seem to have an opinion in search of cherry-picked facts to bolster it instead of having a desire to understand and searching for verifiable sources to inform yourself. 

It's as if you prefer faith and believe that "my ignorance is just as good as your learning" is the best approach to comprehending these events. It's odd, really. 

Answers are readily available to these questions and details, and you're interacting with people who have taken the time to explore and better understand them... people who are willing to share what they've learned with you to help you be better informed.