The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

[malchior]

While another judge might have been just as bad we absolutely know Cannon is willing to act lawlessly.

I was literally yelling at my computer yesterday because I had the ABC News livestream up and the commentator was dismissing the concerns over Cannon because "there are no Trump judges or Obama judges, just judges" that would be neutral and uphold the law.

I was like ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME? This isn't a judge we know nothing about that just happened to be appointed by Trump. This is a judge with a history of making rulings in Trump's favor that fly in the face of reason.

Radical centrists make my blood boil. The one thing I can't stand about modernity is that the height of seriousness could be measured in their ability to ignore reality.

[El Guapo]

While another judge might have been just as bad we absolutely know Cannon is willing to act lawlessly.

I was literally yelling at my computer yesterday because I had the ABC News livestream up and the commentator was dismissing the concerns over Cannon because "there are no Trump judges or Obama judges, just judges" that would be neutral and uphold the law.

I was like ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME? This isn't a judge we know nothing about that just happened to be appointed by Trump. This is a judge with a history of making rulings in Trump's favor that fly in the face of reason.

Radical centrists make my blood boil. The one thing I can't stand about modernity is that the height of seriousness could be measured in their ability to ignore reality.

Is this a major fuck up by DOJ? The risk that this could / would windup with Cannon seems like a knowable risk. I'd think if I'm DOJ I would rather be fighting about venue in D.C. than having to deal with Cannon overseeing the trial.

I will say that the venue issue (and the delay that could entail) is not a trivial risk either, so this isn't necessarily a slam dunk call, but having Cannon involved seems like a worst case scenario.

[malchior]

Is this a major fuck up by DOJ? The risk that this could / would windup with Cannon seems like a knowable risk. I'd think if I'm DOJ I would rather be fighting about venue in D.C. than having to deal with Cannon overseeing the trial.

This seems unknowable to me. Everything I read says there was a 10-15% chance of drawing her.

I will say that the venue issue (and the delay that could entail) is not a trivial risk either, so this isn't necessarily a slam dunk call, but having Cannon involved seems like a worst case scenario.

This is the flip side - an unknowable risk in itself. Some other observers note he has the potential of filing a case here in NJ as well for disseminating classified materials. Perhaps it is a card he holds. Or a card he has to play early or not at all. Same thing with potential 1/6 charges.

The risk with Cannon is if she goes hard lawless from the get go then any move to charge in Newark (or Trenton) is going to look like they are tied together. It's a maddening mix all with time pressure around the election. It is really is not an ideal situation so it's hard to pass judgement on *where*. The proper question might be *when* he should have acted. Perhaps months ago to have more time to maneuver around these issues. It seems he traded completeness for time. We'll have to see how this turns out and then we can play the coulda/woulda/shoulda.

[Carpet_pissr]

My money is still on Mr Fed's doomsday scenario where they have a full trial, he is convicted, and the defense asks the verdict be set aside and the judge rules that as a matter of law, he's not guilty. It would be all over with no chance for review or retrial.

And Cannon would go down in history as the person who single handedly destroyed democracy and the rule of law with one bang of the gavel.

Can you imagine her explaining this to her grandchildren: "Yes, but they sent me a really nice red hat."

And she would be an instant national, beloved hero to a large swath of the population. We know she’s Team Trump. I wonder which scenario she prefers?
(Serious question bc she could go ‘Kavanaugh’ on this).

[Zaxxon]

Is this a major fuck up by DOJ? The risk that this could / would windup with Cannon seems like a knowable risk. I'd think if I'm DOJ I would rather be fighting about venue in D.C. than having to deal with Cannon overseeing the trial.

This seems unknowable to me. Everything I read says there was a 10-15% chance of drawing her.

In this timeline, the chance was 100% from the start.

[El Guapo]

Is this a major fuck up by DOJ? The risk that this could / would windup with Cannon seems like a knowable risk. I'd think if I'm DOJ I would rather be fighting about venue in D.C. than having to deal with Cannon overseeing the trial.

This seems unknowable to me. Everything I read says there was a 10-15% chance of drawing her.

In this timeline, the chance was 100% from the start.

I mean, I do wonder a bit about the behind the scenes process on this.

[Jaymann]

Is this a major fuck up by DOJ? The risk that this could / would windup with Cannon seems like a knowable risk. I'd think if I'm DOJ I would rather be fighting about venue in D.C. than having to deal with Cannon overseeing the trial.

This seems unknowable to me. Everything I read says there was a 10-15% chance of drawing her.

In this timeline, the chance was 100% from the start.

I mean, I do wonder a bit about the behind the scenes process on this.

Apparently the kid in his parents' basement thought it would be a hoot.

[Zarathud]

The headline on this should be:

Defiant Ex-President Threatens National Security Failing to Return State Secrets

Trump bought this on himself by his ego and defiance. Anyone else would have cooperated but Trump needed to feel relevant after his loss, and may need to sell state secrets if his fundraising ever dries up.

[malchior]

Fox News showing it is not biased.

Please tell me that's not real. Right?

Don't worry - Fox has "addressed" this

“Wannabe dictator speaks at the White House after having his political rival arrested,” the chyron read. It did not refer to Mr. Biden by name, but the implication was clear.

The alert appeared at the end of the 8 p.m. broadcast of “Fox News Tonight,” a show that recently replaced one that had been hosted by Tucker Carlson, a popular prime-time host who was dismissed by the network in April. The footage of Mr. Biden showed him speaking on the South Lawn of the White House on Tuesday at a holiday event.

The term “wannabe dictator” was unusually strong even for a network that generally had a friendly relationship with the Trump White House and has been heavily critical of the Biden administration.

...

A spokeswoman for Fox News said, “The chyron was taken down immediately and was addressed.” She added that Mr. Kilmeade's comment was an unintentional mistake.

[waitingtoconnect]

Is this a major fuck up by DOJ? The risk that this could / would windup with Cannon seems like a knowable risk. I'd think if I'm DOJ I would rather be fighting about venue in D.C. than having to deal with Cannon overseeing the trial.

This seems unknowable to me. Everything I read says there was a 10-15% chance of drawing her.

I will say that the venue issue (and the delay that could entail) is not a trivial risk either, so this isn't necessarily a slam dunk call, but having Cannon involved seems like a worst case scenario.

This is the flip side - an unknowable risk in itself. Some other observers note he has the potential of filing a case here in NJ as well for disseminating classified materials. Perhaps it is a card he holds. Or a card he has to play early or not at all. Same thing with potential 1/6 charges.

The risk with Cannon is if she goes hard lawless from the get go then any move to charge in Newark (or Trenton) is going to look like they are tied together. It's a maddening mix all with time pressure around the election. It is really is not an ideal situation so it's hard to pass judgement on *where*. The proper question might be *when* he should have acted. Perhaps months ago to have more time to maneuver around these issues. It seems he traded completeness for time. We'll have to see how this turns out and then we can play the coulda/woulda/shoulda.

She could find a way to dismiss with prejudice without going to a jury trial. That can’t be appealed no matter how crazy it is.

[El Guapo]

Is this a major fuck up by DOJ? The risk that this could / would windup with Cannon seems like a knowable risk. I'd think if I'm DOJ I would rather be fighting about venue in D.C. than having to deal with Cannon overseeing the trial.

This seems unknowable to me. Everything I read says there was a 10-15% chance of drawing her.

I will say that the venue issue (and the delay that could entail) is not a trivial risk either, so this isn't necessarily a slam dunk call, but having Cannon involved seems like a worst case scenario.

This is the flip side - an unknowable risk in itself. Some other observers note he has the potential of filing a case here in NJ as well for disseminating classified materials. Perhaps it is a card he holds. Or a card he has to play early or not at all. Same thing with potential 1/6 charges.

The risk with Cannon is if she goes hard lawless from the get go then any move to charge in Newark (or Trenton) is going to look like they are tied together. It's a maddening mix all with time pressure around the election. It is really is not an ideal situation so it's hard to pass judgement on *where*. The proper question might be *when* he should have acted. Perhaps months ago to have more time to maneuver around these issues. It seems he traded completeness for time. We'll have to see how this turns out and then we can play the coulda/woulda/shoulda.

She could find a way to dismiss with prejudice without going to a jury trial. That can’t be appealed no matter how crazy it is.

No, that can 100% be appealed. "With prejudice" just means that the plaintiff does not have a chance to file a new complaint on the same subject.

[malchior]

Is this a major fuck up by DOJ? The risk that this could / would windup with Cannon seems like a knowable risk. I'd think if I'm DOJ I would rather be fighting about venue in D.C. than having to deal with Cannon overseeing the trial.

This seems unknowable to me. Everything I read says there was a 10-15% chance of drawing her.

I will say that the venue issue (and the delay that could entail) is not a trivial risk either, so this isn't necessarily a slam dunk call, but having Cannon involved seems like a worst case scenario.

This is the flip side - an unknowable risk in itself. Some other observers note he has the potential of filing a case here in NJ as well for disseminating classified materials. Perhaps it is a card he holds. Or a card he has to play early or not at all. Same thing with potential 1/6 charges.

The risk with Cannon is if she goes hard lawless from the get go then any move to charge in Newark (or Trenton) is going to look like they are tied together. It's a maddening mix all with time pressure around the election. It is really is not an ideal situation so it's hard to pass judgement on *where*. The proper question might be *when* he should have acted. Perhaps months ago to have more time to maneuver around these issues. It seems he traded completeness for time. We'll have to see how this turns out and then we can play the coulda/woulda/shoulda.

She could find a way to dismiss with prejudice without going to a jury trial. That can’t be appealed no matter how crazy it is.

No, that can 100% be appealed. "With prejudice" just means that the plaintiff does not have a chance to file a new complaint on the same subject.

Also depending on how it goes down jeopardy might not be attached and the charges can be re-filed.

[Smoove_B]

A second delay tactic has emerged

Here comes Judge Aileen Cannon with her first order (administrative matter) in USA v Trump case.

Order: “On or before June 16.. all attorneys of record and forthcoming attorneys.. shall contact the Litigation Security Group of (DOJ) if they have not done so already, to expedite the necessary clearance process for all team members anticipated to participate in this matter”

I'm guessing next Tuesday we'll learn it wasn't long enough to go through the process and then eventually we'll see what happens when TFG can't find a lawyer that can get a security clearance at all.

[GreenGoo]

I'm guessing next Tuesday we'll learn it wasn't long enough to go through the process and then eventually we'll see what happens when TFG can't find a lawyer that can get a security clearance at all.

Public defender.

[Smoove_B]

Not sure that would work. I'd imagine it's a short list of people on the planet that could technically serve as his lawyer if they're going to require some type of national security level hurdle to be cleared.

Again, it's completely amazing to see him pinball around our legal system that is in no way capable of addressing the larger issues surrounding his crimes. Ahem, "alleged" crimes.

[ImLawBoy]

I'm guessing most Public Defenders don't have security clearance of the nature discussed. I did some time in the Federal Government contracting group at work, and there were some (mostly Dept. of Defense) contracts that could only be worked by one of two of our lawyers who had the required security clearance (I was not one of them).

[malchior]

I could also parse that order to say she is attempting to act expeditiously.

[GreenGoo]

The judge is talking about expediting the security process. Because *NO* lawyers that might be part of Drumpf's defense team have it. Surely there is a public defender out there who would pass the security clearance hurdles.

First, I thought Drumpf didn't have any lawyers, so I'm not sure who is being expedited. Second, if no one is defending, then assign a public defender and send them through the process.

[malchior]

The judge is talking about expediting the security process. Because *NO* lawyers that might be part of Drumpf's defense team have it. Surely there is a public defender out there who would pass the security clearance hurdles.

First, I thought Drumpf didn't have any lawyers, so I'm not sure who is being expedited. Second, if no one is defending, then assign a public defender and send them through the process.

Trump appeared at court with his lawyer Christopher Kise. We don't know his clearance status or whether he is staying on the team. I get some of this anxiety but some of the reaction to what appears to be a normal order is a little over the top. I'm not calling out you here btw but more the folks completely losing it over what again appears to be an entirely sensible and normal request. It's far too early to assume she is explicitly helping him here. In this case, that would require her to know information about the team that would pretty much require full on coordinating with Trump's team.

[GreenGoo]

I realize you're probably not speaking to me directly, but I'm no more anxious than I was before he was indicted.

Call me when the sentence is handed out. Until then I'll just assume there will be zero consequences for this buffoon.

[Kurth]

The judge is talking about expediting the security process. Because *NO* lawyers that might be part of Drumpf's defense team have it. Surely there is a public defender out there who would pass the security clearance hurdles.

First, I thought Drumpf didn't have any lawyers, so I'm not sure who is being expedited. Second, if no one is defending, then assign a public defender and send them through the process.

Trump appeared at court with his lawyer Christopher Kise. We don't know his clearance status or whether he is staying on the team. I get some of this anxiety but some of the reaction to what appears to be a normal order is a little over the top. I'm not calling out you here btw but more the folks completely losing it over what again appears to be an entirely sensible and normal request. It's far too early to assume she is explicitly helping him here. In this case, that would require her to know information about the team that would pretty much require full on coordinating with Trump's team.

This is the right take. There’s no universe where security clearance wasn’t going to be an issue - we’re talking about a case where top secret documents are at its center. The fact she’s jumpstarting this security process so soon is a good sign, not a bad one.

[waitingtoconnect]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... grand-jury

maga needs to compare trump to this young man not “Biden”. Similar cases in many ways yet he’s held behind bars and his home was stormed by a Bradley fighting vehicle and drones were used to watch him.

And as others have said I’d the republicans movement is a movement of law and order then even if Clinton and Biden were guilty of something you’d convict them all!

For me what’s alarming is that a number of folk are saying trump is not guilty because he is still actually the real president….

[waitingtoconnect]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... aurant-pay


Donald Trump headed to Miami’s famous Cuban restaurant Versailles after his arraignment at the city’s federal courthouse on Tuesday and is said to have declared to a crowd of admirers “Food for everyone!” after walking inside.

It was a promise, though, that the former US president did not keep, according to the Miami New Times, despite supporters also wishing him a happy birthday, one day early.

[Smoove_B]

NEW: Trump defense team notifies Judge Aileen Cannon it has followed her order:

"Counsel has contacted the Litigation Security Group of the (Justice Dept) for the purpose of obtaining the necessary security clearance for team members anticipated to participate in this matter.."

[Unagi]

I wonder how many lawyers are denied the clearance after review.
I feel like it’s a pencil whip.

[malchior]

I wonder how many lawyers are denied the clearance after review.
I feel like it’s a pencil whip.

Security clearance investigations are rarely (probably never) a pencil whip. It depends on the level of access required but they are typically extremely invasive.

[ImLawBoy]

While I have no reason to think I'd fail a security clearance review, there's no way I wanted to go through one unless my job depended on it.

[Jaymann]

Dang, I knew I shouldn't have signed that sheet of the Students for Democratic Society.

[Unagi]

I wonder how many lawyers are denied the clearance after review.
I feel like it’s a pencil whip.

Security clearance investigations are rarely (probably never) a pencil whip. It depends on the level of access required but they are typically extremely invasive.

So what happens when Trump lawyer “McForehead” is deemed a security risk and that’s then presented as keeping Trump from being defended by his chosen representatives.

?

[Unagi]

“Here are all my Russian backed lawyers that I need to defend me in this Witch Hunt that you won’t let me use as lawyers in the case that I tried to over turn American democracy… “

[Blackhawk]

Being willing to defend Trump should be enough to disqualify one from a security clearance.

[Lagom Lite]

Wait... there's no way for higher-ups to remove Judge Cannon from the case? All people can do is sort of beg her to recuse herself, which she can refuse to do even though she must by Federal law? That's embarrassing, America. She was appointed by the defendant ffs.

[malchior]

Wait... there's no way for higher-ups to remove Judge Cannon from the case? All people can do is sort of beg her to recuse herself, which she can refuse to do even though she must by Federal law? That's embarrassing, America. She was appointed by the defendant ffs.

There are paths but they are unlikely to succeed. They start with her volunteering to recuse. If not, either side could file a motion to ask for a different judge (or venue which has the same effect) but they again begin with herself deciding whether to grant them. And those decisions are sometimes appealable to higher courts but those sort of appeals typically fail.

[stessier]

Wait... there's no way for higher-ups to remove Judge Cannon from the case? All people can do is sort of beg her to recuse herself, which she can refuse to do even though she must by Federal law? That's embarrassing, America. She was appointed by the defendant ffs.

There is no federal law that says she must recuse.

[Holman]

Wait... there's no way for higher-ups to remove Judge Cannon from the case? All people can do is sort of beg her to recuse herself, which she can refuse to do even though she must by Federal law? That's embarrassing, America. She was appointed by the defendant ffs.

There is no federal law that says she must recuse.

With a footnote to the effect that, as far as the basic norms of governance are concerned, the 21st century is the era of things unimaginable in the 20th.

[stessier]

Wait... there's no way for higher-ups to remove Judge Cannon from the case? All people can do is sort of beg her to recuse herself, which she can refuse to do even though she must by Federal law? That's embarrassing, America. She was appointed by the defendant ffs.

There is no federal law that says she must recuse.

With a footnote to the effect that, as far as the basic norms of governance are concerned, the 21st century is the era of things unimaginable in the 20th.

Mr Fed discussed this on his podcast. Given the conflicts that are understood to be grounds for recusal, nothing she has done thus far would qualify. He did point out that the lay understanding of the terms and how the federal judiciary understands those same terms is vastly different.

[malchior]

Pretty significant story at WaPo confirming what many of us thought.

Hours after he was sworn in as attorney general, Merrick Garland and his deputies gathered in a wood-paneled conference room in the Justice Department for a private briefing on the investigation he had promised to make his highest priority: bringing to justice those responsible for the attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

In the two months since the siege, federal agents had conducted 709 searches, charged 278 rioters and identified 885 likely suspects, said Michael R. Sherwin, then-acting U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, ticking through a slide presentation. Garland and some of his deputies nodded approvingly at the stats, and the new attorney general called the progress “remarkable,” according to people in the room.

Sherwin’s office, with the help of the FBI, was responsible for prosecuting all crimes stemming from the Jan. 6 attack. He had made headlines the day after by refusing to rule out the possibility that President Donald Trump himself could be culpable. “We are looking at all actors, not only the people who went into the building,” Sherwin said in response to a reporter’s question about Trump. “If the evidence fits the elements of a crime, they’re going to be charged.”

But according to a copy of the briefing document, absent from Sherwin’s 11-page presentation to Garland on March 11, 2021, was any reference to Trump or his advisers — those who did not go to the Capitol riot but orchestrated events that led to it.

...

A wariness about appearing partisan, institutional caution, and clashes over how much evidence was sufficient to investigate the actions of Trump and those around him all contributed to the slow pace. Garland and the deputy attorney general, Lisa Monaco, charted a cautious course aimed at restoring public trust in the department while some prosecutors below them chafed, feeling top officials were shying away from looking at evidence of potential crimes by Trump and those close to him, The Post found.

...

Still, there were consequences to moving at a slower pace. For many months after the attack, prosecutors did not interview White House aides or other key witnesses, according to authorities and attorneys for some of those who have since been contacted by the special counsel. In that time, communications were put at risk of being lost or deleted and memories left to fade.

Peter Zeidenberg, who helped lead a special counsel probe of the George W. Bush White House, said Garland and Monaco had to tread carefully because investigating a president’s attempts to overturn an election is a novel case, and they did not want to appear partisan. “But you can take it to the extreme … you work so hard not to be a partisan that you’re failing to do your job.”

[malchior]

I agree. And frankly I think Garland needs to go as well. If Trump is re-elected I'm going to blame him (and consequently Biden) for a lot of this absolute dereliction of duty and mismanagement of risk. The whole DOJ including the FBI were and are unable to deal with the internal threats we face. We need to re-evaluate much if we make it through this era.

[Smoove_B]

I'm guessing we'll be hearing he needs new lawyers tomorrow.

Well that’s that. Trump just confessed to Fox News that he stole and shared classified materials.

[hepcat]

I like the part where he repeatedly admits he isn’t president anymore.