Tiny is Indicted Quatrième fois/Fourth Time

News and commentary on trials, the law, and expert opinions about legal systems
User avatar
Deuce Canada
Posts: 4531
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 5:52 am
Location: An unparallel universe
Has thanked: 336 times
Been thanked: 977 times

Re: Tiny is Indicted

#46

Post by Deuce »

Owendonovan wrote: Thu Apr 06, 2023 10:28 pm
Deuce wrote: Thu Apr 06, 2023 9:38 pm Yes... all the attention you all are giving Trump and his people certainly seems to be working, huh?
Yup - he has almost completely disappeared, hasn't he? :roll:

Trump is as popular now as he's ever been.
Congratulations.

Two wrongs will never make a right, no matter how hard you try.

(And by the way - the rest of the world is laughing at your country more and more...)
Like we control the media. (by the way, do you honestly think we don't know how the world views us.....) Some strong generalizations from someone who often goes off on people generalizing.
The only generalization I see is an accurate one - that Americans love sensationalism. This is a fair and accurate generalization based on historical fact.
Of course there will be exceptions to every generalization - obviously not every single American is the same... but that certainly doesn't make the generalization any less accurate.

And in that way, you all (Americans) DO indeed control the media. Because the media gives the people what they want. They see that the majority lap up the sensationalism, and so that's what they give everyone.

I'm rather convinced that other countries are laughing just as much at all of the attention and obsession that Americans have with people like Trump, and the power that Trump, etc. are inherently given through this process (as well as the entertainment Americans obviously derive from it all) as they are laughing at people like Trump directly. And the attention one gives these buffoons is very much within the control of each individual.

In the end, the only thing that really matters is the end result. And in the case of Trump, the end result - to this point, at least - is that he is still obviously extremely popular.
So, given that fact, if you truly believe that the approach you're taking will eventually lead to defeating his popularity, then by all means continue along that same path. Personally, I see only evidence that this approach is serving to fuel his popularity more than anything else.
But, hey - what do I know... I'm just a Canuck...
Last edited by Deuce on Fri Apr 07, 2023 2:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
R.I.P. Amal...

“The opposite of courage is not cowardice - it’s conformity. Even a dead fish can go with the flow.”- Jim Hightower
Owendonovan United States of America
Posts: 1002
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2021 3:08 am
Location: NYC
Has thanked: 941 times
Been thanked: 713 times

Re: Tiny is Indicted

#47

Post by Owendonovan »

Deuce wrote: Fri Apr 07, 2023 2:30 am
Owendonovan wrote: Thu Apr 06, 2023 10:28 pm
Deuce wrote: Thu Apr 06, 2023 9:38 pm Yes... all the attention you all are giving Trump and his people certainly seems to be working, huh?
Yup - he has almost completely disappeared, hasn't he? :roll:

Trump is as popular now as he's ever been.
Congratulations.

Two wrongs will never make a right, no matter how hard you try.

(And by the way - the rest of the world is laughing at your country more and more...)
Like we control the media. (by the way, do you honestly think we don't know how the world views us.....) Some strong generalizations from someone who often goes off on people generalizing.
The only generalization I see is an accurate one - that Americans love sensationalism. This is a fair and accurate generalization based on historical fact.
Of course there will be exceptions to every generalization - obviously not every single American is the same... but that certainly doesn't make the generalization any less accurate.

And in that way, you all (Americans) DO indeed control the media. Because the media gives the people what they want. They see that the majority lap up the sensationalism, and so that's what they give everyone.

I'm rather convinced that other countries are laughing just as much at all of the attention and obsession that Americans have with people like Trump, and the power that Trump, etc. are inherently given through this process (as well as the entertainment Americans obviously derive from it all) as they are laughing at people like Trump directly. And the attention one gives these buffoons is very much within the control of each individual.
You're generalizing us Americans on this forum, and I think you're also negatively mischaracterizing us on this forum. What kind of attention do you think I or anyone here gives him? Do you think we have alerts on our phones when he's in the news or something? I don't. I know what I need to know about him and any variety of politicians that are trying to marginalize me, or help me. I read about what I need to know about what he's doing as it affects me and this country. Otherwise, I'm ignorant. Is that preferable?
User avatar
Deuce Canada
Posts: 4531
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 5:52 am
Location: An unparallel universe
Has thanked: 336 times
Been thanked: 977 times

Re: Tiny is Indicted

#48

Post by Deuce »

Owendonovan wrote: Fri Apr 07, 2023 2:46 am
Deuce wrote: Fri Apr 07, 2023 2:30 am
Owendonovan wrote: Thu Apr 06, 2023 10:28 pm

Like we control the media. (by the way, do you honestly think we don't know how the world views us.....) Some strong generalizations from someone who often goes off on people generalizing.
The only generalization I see is an accurate one - that Americans love sensationalism. This is a fair and accurate generalization based on historical fact.
Of course there will be exceptions to every generalization - obviously not every single American is the same... but that certainly doesn't make the generalization any less accurate.

And in that way, you all (Americans) DO indeed control the media. Because the media gives the people what they want. They see that the majority lap up the sensationalism, and so that's what they give everyone.

I'm rather convinced that other countries are laughing just as much at all of the attention and obsession that Americans have with people like Trump, and the power that Trump, etc. are inherently given through this process (as well as the entertainment Americans obviously derive from it all) as they are laughing at people like Trump directly. And the attention one gives these buffoons is very much within the control of each individual.
You're generalizing us Americans on this forum, and I think you're also negatively mischaracterizing us on this forum. What kind of attention do you think I or anyone here gives him? Do you think we have alerts on our phones when he's in the news or something? I don't. I know what I need to know about him and any variety of politicians that are trying to marginalize me, or help me. I read about what I need to know about what he's doing as it affects me and this country. Otherwise, I'm ignorant. Is that preferable?
Owen, my entire point is that it does not matter what kind of attention you or others give him/them; that he and his supporters will use ANY attention - positive, negative, what have you - as absolute fuel. I believe the evidence shows this without even the slightest doubt.

You were quite proud the other day of your yelling at the media people and the Trump supporters that the media people were interviewing...
If you truly believe that that does not help to fuel them, you're entitled to that belief. But my experience in life leads me to a very different belief, which includes that they were all very likely laughing at the fact that they upset you so much - because that's exactly what their goal is - to upset the opposition as much as possible.

In other words, I feel that you're giving them exactly what they want, and they use that as fuel to continue on.
If you believe differently, so be it.

(And I have spent 30 years working with the poor, the homeless, prostitutes, troubled children, etc., as well, also trying to 'make a positive difference'... I have no idea how this information is relevant to this discussion, but, as another poster mentioned his history in those types of fields, I figured I would, as well, in case he finds it somehow relevant.)
R.I.P. Amal...

“The opposite of courage is not cowardice - it’s conformity. Even a dead fish can go with the flow.”- Jim Hightower
Owendonovan United States of America
Posts: 1002
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2021 3:08 am
Location: NYC
Has thanked: 941 times
Been thanked: 713 times

Re: Tiny is Indicted

#49

Post by Owendonovan »

Yes, I believe differently.
User avatar
ti-amie United States of America
Posts: 22983
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 4:44 pm
Location: The Boogie Down, NY
Has thanked: 5302 times
Been thanked: 3284 times

Honorary_medal

Re: Tiny is Indicted

#50

Post by ti-amie »



“Do not grow old, no matter how long you live. Never cease to stand like curious children before the Great Mystery into which we were born.” Albert Einstein
User avatar
ti-amie United States of America
Posts: 22983
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 4:44 pm
Location: The Boogie Down, NY
Has thanked: 5302 times
Been thanked: 3284 times

Honorary_medal

Re: Tiny is Indicted

#51

Post by ti-amie »

“Do not grow old, no matter how long you live. Never cease to stand like curious children before the Great Mystery into which we were born.” Albert Einstein
User avatar
ti-amie United States of America
Posts: 22983
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 4:44 pm
Location: The Boogie Down, NY
Has thanked: 5302 times
Been thanked: 3284 times

Honorary_medal

Re: Tiny is Indicted

#52

Post by ti-amie »

I guess I have to take back all the crap I gave DA Bragg when he canned the first investigation.





Summary: The Supreme Court Rules in Trump v. Mazars
By Rachel Bercovitz, Todd Carney Friday, July 10, 2020, 8:21 PM
Google+
Reddit
LinkedIn

Ruling in Trump v. Mazars on July 9, the Supreme Court held that courts must take into account separation of powers concerns in resolving disputes over congressional subpoenas seeking personal information of the president. The court found that the split panels at the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and the Second Circuit had failed to adequately account for “weighty” separation of powers considerations when rejecting challenges to House committee subpoenas seeking financial records relating to President Trump, his affiliated business entities and his family members. In a 7-2 decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court vacated the judgments below and remanded to the district courts for further proceedings. (The court also ruled in a related but distinct case concerning Trump’s efforts to block subpoenas for his financial records from New York state law enforcement; a summary of that decision, Trump v. Vance, is available here.)

The court defined the question presented as a matter of first impression, stating it had “never addressed a congressional subpoena for the President’s information.” Such subpoenas, the court found, “unavoidably pit the political branches against one another.” This is so even when, as in these cases, subpoenas implicate the president in his personal, not official, capacity, or are issued to third parties. While the court affirmed that it is the “‘duty of all citizens to cooperate’” with congressional information requests, the majority found that courts presiding over subpoenas seeking information from the president must account for the “special” separation of powers issues these disputes raise.

Roberts was joined in the majority by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito both penned dissents.

Background

In April 2019, the U.S. House of Representatives issued four subpoenas for Trump’s financial records. The House Committee on Financial Services sent a subpoena to Deutsche Bank concerning “foreign transactions, business statements, debt schedules, statements of net worth, tax returns, and suspicious activity identified by Deutsche Bank” and also subpoenaed Capital One for similar matters. The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence also subpoenaed Deutsche Bank. Finally, the House Committee on Oversight and Reform subpoenaed Trump’s personal accounting firm, Mazars USA, LLP, for matters related to the president and his businesses. All three committees provided individual justifications for their subpoenas, arguing that the records were needed for the House to weigh potential legislation in areas such as terrorism, money laundering and foreign interference in elections.

Trump, his children and the Trump businesses sought to block the subpoenas, contesting the Oversight Committee subpoena in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (in what became Trump v. Mazars) and the subpoenas from the Financial Services and Intelligence committees in the Southern District of New York (in what became Trump v. Deutsche Bank). The president argued that Congress lacked a “legitimate legislative purpose” and that the action was a violation of the separation of powers. In Mazars, the district court ruled for the House on the basis that the tax returns “served a valid legislative purpose” because the returns related to legislation addressing financial disclosure requirements for presidential candidates and presidents. The D.C. Circuit affirmed this ruling. In Deutsche Bank, the district court and Second Circuit also upheld the subpoenas, finding that they were sufficiently related to legislation being reviewed by the committees concerning national security, terrorism, money laundering and “the global movement of illicit funds through the real estate market.” The Supreme Court consolidated Mazars and Deutsche Bank.

The Majority Opinion

Roberts distinguishes the dispute before the Supreme Court as a “significant departure from historical practice.” From George Washington’s administration to the present, he writes, the political branches have resolved information disputes out of court, through the “‘hurly-burly, the give-and-take of the political process.’” These more than two centuries of established practice “impose on [the court] a duty of care” not to upset the conflict resolution mechanisms the two branches have developed and employed over time.

The chief justice situates his analysis within a body of case law regarding Congress’s subpoena powers. To begin, each chamber of Congress has implied constitutional authority to conduct investigations and issue subpoenas. Congress’s power to obtain information is “‘broad’” and “‘indispensable,’” Roberts writes but not without limit. The guiding test: congressional subpoenas must address a “‘valid legislative purpose.’” They must be “‘related to, and in furtherance of, a legitimate task of the Congress.’”

Roberts outlines further limits established by precedent. First, Congress may not issue subpoenas for a “law enforcement” purpose—which would involve exercising powers belonging to the executive and judicial branches. Investigations may not seek “‘exposure for the sake of exposure’” or to simply penalize those investigated. Finally, Congress’s oversight and investigative powers are limited by the Constitution, as well as common law and constitutional privileges. These include attorney-client and executive privileges.

With this in mind, the chief justice rejects both the president’s and the House’s proposals for how to evaluate congressional subpoena enforcement disputes implicating the executive branch. Either proposal, he finds, would “transfor[m]” how the two branches have historically resolved such disputes.

First, Roberts rebuffs the president’s and the solicitor general’s call for the House to show a “‘demonstrated, specific need’” for information and explain that the information sought is “demonstrably critical” to a legislative purpose. The Supreme Court and the D.C. Circuit had outlined these “demanding standards” in United States v. Nixon and Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities v. Nixon—cases concerning the Watergate tapes, over which President Nixon had asserted executive privilege. Though information protected by executive privilege is given the “‘greatest protection,’” Roberts declines to categorically “transplant that protection root and branch” to subpoena enforcement suits that do not implicate privileged information. To do so, he writes, “would risk seriously impeding Congress in carrying out its responsibilities.”

But Roberts also rejects the House’s position that the validity of the subpoenas should follow the same legal standard guiding the Supreme Court’s evaluation of congressional subpoenas not implicating the president’s information. The House’s proposal, the chief justice finds, fails to account for profound separation of powers concerns, for it identifies no limits on Congress’s subpoena authority. According to the House proposal, the majority cautions, Congress could “walk away from the bargaining table” and enforce the disputed subpoena against the executive branch in court. This unlimited power would “transform” how the two branches have historically resolved information access disputes, altering the balance of power at the executive branch’s expense.

The majority finds these separation of powers concerns to be no less—and indeed perhaps more—prominent in the context of subpoenas seeking personal papers of the president or those served on third parties. Roberts states that the “President is the only person who alone composes a branch of government.” Because only an ambiguous line separates “the Office of the President and its occupant,” requests for personal information from the president may still trigger an interbranch dispute. Further, the sensitive nature of the requested documents and their possibly tenuous connection to a legislative purpose may heighten the risk of congressional abuse.

Finally, the chief justice states that these concerns over separation of powers are animated “no matter where the information is held—it is, after all, the President’s information.” If this were not so, he reasons, Congress could circumvent constitutional requirements and “declare open season on the President’s information” held by third parties.

Finding that neither the parties nor the courts below had adequately accounted for these separation of powers concerns, Roberts sets forth a four-factor balancing test for evaluating the validity of congressional subpoenas seeking personal information of the president. Courts weighing these factors are to account for the “significant legislative interests of Congress,” along with the “‘unique position’ of the President.”

While acknowledging that other factors may be relevant, Roberts sets out four in particular. First, courts should consider whether “other sources could reasonably provide Congress the information it needs in light of its particular legislative objective.” Second, subpoenas may be “no broader than reasonably necessary to support Congress’s legislative objective.” Third, “Congress must adequately identif[y] its aims and explai[n] why the President’s information will advance its consideration of the possible legislation.” Finally, courts “should be careful to assess the burdens imposed on the President by a subpoena.”

With this set out, Roberts vacates the judgments of the courts of appeals in Mazars and Deutsche Bank and remands the matter for further proceedings.

The Dissents

Thomas opens by arguing that Congress has no authority to subpoena personal documents—regardless of who they belong to. In his view, the only possibility of Congress obtaining these documents would be through a formal investigation of the president carried out under Congress’s impeachment powers.

The justice takes issue with the argument that Congress’s power to subpoena is an implied power under its power to legislate. He points to Marbury v. Madison, quoting: “The powers of the legislature are defined, and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written.” Moving from Marbury to McCulloch v. Maryland and Thomas’s own dissent in United States v. Comstock, he writes that there must be strong underlying evidence that the power was meant by the Founders to be implied. As a result, implied powers are “very limited.”

There is no evidence from the founding, Thomas argues, that the power of subpoenaing personal documents was implied to Congress. In his view, key precedents dealing with legislative subpoenas—Kilbourn v. Thompson and McGrain v. Daugherty—do not demonstrate any support for “private, nonofficial documents.”

Thomas rebuffs the House’s argument that Congress enjoys the same investigation powers as did the British Parliament when the United States was founded. “Parliament,” he writes, “was supreme. Congress is not.” He points out that Article I forbids “bills of attainder,” a power held by Parliament at the time of the Founding. Likewise, the “Bill of Rights” focuses on protecting the individual from the government—including Congress. He also notes the Supreme Court’s finding in Kilbourn that Congress has fewer investigative powers than Parliament.

What’s more, Thomas writes, 18th century American legislatures did not have these powers. Such legislatures sometimes sought testimony, but their requests concerned official government information, not personal information. It’s true that some legislatures in this period did conduct nonlegislative investigations—but in Mazars, the House was not claiming that authority but instead claimed an authority to investigate derived from the power to legislate. Finally, Thomas notes, the other areas investigated by colonial and state legislatures were radically different from the subjects investigated by Congress today. Those legislatures investigated issues such as libel and insults—something the current Congress would not touch.

Thomas then examines the evolution of congressional subpoenas beginning at the Founding, arguing that early investigations into generals and members of Congress did not look at personal documents. In fact, Thomas writes, the only instances in which Congress sought personal documents involved material from a federally chartered bank.

And the practice of issuing legislative subpoenas for nonofficial information was controversial throughout the 19th century. Thomas writes that when the Supreme Court first considered legislative subpoenas in Kilbourn, in 1880, it “cast … doubt on legislative subpoenas generally” and “held that the subpoena at issue was unlawful.” In McGrain, the Supreme Court later upheld Congress’s power to issue subpoenas as derived from its power to legislate—but, Thomas argues, McGrain “lacks any foundation in text or history.” Though the Supreme Court has rolled back Congress’s authority to compel testimony or documents after McGrain, Thomas would instead decline to apply McGrain altogether. For “it is readily apparent,” he writes, “that the Committees have no constitutional authority to subpoena private, nonofficial documents.”

Finally, Thomas writes that the only concrete example of Congress being able to subpoena personal documents has been through the impeachment process. If Congress seeks to obtain Trump’s financial records, he argues, “it should proceed through the impeachment power.”

Alito expresses admiration for Thomas’s argument but writes separately to argue against these particular subpoenas—assuming arguendo that they are not “categorically barred.” Where Congress is not using its impeachment power to subpoenas these documents, Alito argues, its reasoning must be held to a high standard. While Alito agrees with the majority that the cases must be remanded, he writes that the House should be required to be much more descriptive as to the legislation under consideration and how the records are relevant to that legislation. If the House is not ordered to do this, he concludes, then the subpoenas are inappropriate.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/summary-sup ... p-v-mazars

Link to the actual Mazars ruling

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 5_febh.pdf
“Do not grow old, no matter how long you live. Never cease to stand like curious children before the Great Mystery into which we were born.” Albert Einstein
User avatar
ti-amie United States of America
Posts: 22983
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 4:44 pm
Location: The Boogie Down, NY
Has thanked: 5302 times
Been thanked: 3284 times

Honorary_medal

Re: Tiny is Indicted

#53

Post by ti-amie »

Kim Shepherd Ph.D.
@DrKimShepherd
Replying to
@MuellerSheWrote
He's clearing the decks for the other indictments too. There will be no such nonsense when the others (Georgia, J6, MAL docs) start dropping
“Do not grow old, no matter how long you live. Never cease to stand like curious children before the Great Mystery into which we were born.” Albert Einstein
User avatar
ti-amie United States of America
Posts: 22983
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 4:44 pm
Location: The Boogie Down, NY
Has thanked: 5302 times
Been thanked: 3284 times

Honorary_medal

Re: Tiny is Indicted

#54

Post by ti-amie »

Lots going on today.









“Do not grow old, no matter how long you live. Never cease to stand like curious children before the Great Mystery into which we were born.” Albert Einstein
User avatar
ti-amie United States of America
Posts: 22983
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 4:44 pm
Location: The Boogie Down, NY
Has thanked: 5302 times
Been thanked: 3284 times

Honorary_medal

Re: Tiny is Indicted

#55

Post by ti-amie »



We'll see.
“Do not grow old, no matter how long you live. Never cease to stand like curious children before the Great Mystery into which we were born.” Albert Einstein
User avatar
ti-amie United States of America
Posts: 22983
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 4:44 pm
Location: The Boogie Down, NY
Has thanked: 5302 times
Been thanked: 3284 times

Honorary_medal

Re: Tiny is Indicted

#56

Post by ti-amie »



The indictment, as Jack Smith said, is written in plain English and reads like a spy novel. Starting on page 15 it gets really interesting.

From page 45 to 49 the documents from the Grand Jury, The DOJ, etc are shown.
“Do not grow old, no matter how long you live. Never cease to stand like curious children before the Great Mystery into which we were born.” Albert Einstein
User avatar
ti-amie United States of America
Posts: 22983
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 4:44 pm
Location: The Boogie Down, NY
Has thanked: 5302 times
Been thanked: 3284 times

Honorary_medal

Re: Tiny is Indicted

#57

Post by ti-amie »

Image
An image from the indictment shows boxes being stored in a bathroom at Mar-a-Lago. (Justice Department/AP)

Image
An image from the indictment shows boxes being stored in a ballroom at Mar-a-Lago. (Justice Department/AP)

Image
An image in the indictment shows records spilling out in a storage room at Mar-a-Lago. (Justice Department/AP)
“Do not grow old, no matter how long you live. Never cease to stand like curious children before the Great Mystery into which we were born.” Albert Einstein
User avatar
ti-amie United States of America
Posts: 22983
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 4:44 pm
Location: The Boogie Down, NY
Has thanked: 5302 times
Been thanked: 3284 times

Honorary_medal

Re: Tiny is Indicted

#58

Post by ti-amie »

Here are the 37 charges against Trump and what they mean

By Rachel Weiner
Updated June 9, 2023 at 3:21 p.m. EDT|Published June 9, 2023 at 11:11 a.m. EDT

A court on Friday unsealed the federal indictment against Donald Trump and an aide over classified documents found at his Mar-a-Lago home and the men’s alleged efforts to keep the government from finding the materials. Here’s what we know about the charges against the former president, brought by special counsel Jack Smith.

How many charges does Trump face?
Trump is accused of violating seven federal laws but faces 37 separate charges. That is because each classified document he is accused of holding on to illegally is charged in a separate count, and his alleged efforts to hide classified information from federal investigators is charged in several ways. His longtime aide Walt Nauta faces six charges, all but five of which are also lodged against Trump.

What are the charges against Trump?

Espionage Act/unauthorized retention of national defense information:
Trump is charged with 31 counts of violating a part of the Espionage Act that bars willful retention of national defense information by someone not authorized to have it. Such information is defined as “any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation.” Technically, that information does not have to be classified, but in practice the law is almost exclusively used to prosecute retention of classified material. In Trump’s case, prosecutors say that all but one of the 31 documents he is charged with illegally retaining were marked as classified at the “secret” or “top secret” level. The unmarked document concerned “military contingency planning,” according to the indictment.

A conviction does not require any evidence of a desire to disseminate the classified information; having it in an unauthorized location is enough. But the crime requires a “willful” mishandling of material “the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation.” Charges are generally not brought without some aggravating factor making clear the retention was not accidental — such as evidence of intent to share the information, signs of disloyalty to the U.S. government, or simply the volume of documents taken.

Unlike other government employees, the president does not go through a security clearance process that includes a pledge to follow classification rules. But Trump received requests from the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) and subpoenas from the Justice Department indicating that the documents in question were classified and needed to be returned to the U.S. government. Prosecutors say he instead sought to hide them from federal investigators. And while the president can declassify most information, there is a process for doing so. According to the indictment, Trump twice showed classified information to others, once while saying that the document was still classified and lamenting that he no longer had the power to declassify it.

Conspiracy to obstruct justice: Trump is charged with one count of conspiring with Nauta to hide classified material from federal investigators, by lying to the FBI about what was found at Mar-a-Lago and moving boxes of documents out of a storage room before agents searched the home. Trump specifically is accused of suggesting that one of his attorneys lie to the FBI and help hide or destroy documents.

Tampering with grand jury evidence: Trump and Nauta face two counts of trying to keep evidence out of grand jurors’ hands: one count of withholding the classified documents and one of corruptly concealing them. As part of those charges, Trump is accused of trying to persuade one of his attorneys to help conceal the documents, while Nauta is accused of hiding the evidence by moving the boxes of classified documents.

Concealing evidence in a federal investigation: For the same alleged conduct of hiding the classified information at Mar-a-Lago, Trump and Nauta separately face one count of concealing evidence with the intent to obstruct an FBI investigation.

False statements: Both Trump and Nauta together face one count of scheming to making false statements for allegedly hiding from the FBI and the grand jury that the former president still had classified documents in his possession. Trump faces a separate count for causing his attorney to falsely claim in June 2022 that all classified documents in the former president’s possession had been handed over in response to a subpoena, according to the indictment. Nauta alone is accused of lying to the FBI by falsely claiming that he had nothing to do with moving any boxes.

What possible penalties does Trump face?
The maximum punishment for each count of unlawful retention of national defense information is 10 years in prison. Conspiracy to obstruct justice, tampering with grand jury evidence, and concealing evidence in a federal investigation all carry punishments of up to 20 years. Each false statement charge is punishable by up to five years in prison.

If Trump was convicted on all charges, the sentences could run consecutively, amounting to hundreds of years in prison. But federal defendants are rarely given the maximum possible punishment. He does not face any mandatory minimum sentences.

Sentences in unlawful retention cases vary widely, depending in part on how sensitive the material is, how much of it there is, how long the person held on to it and his or her cooperation with investigators. A Defense Department employee in Manila who took home a small amount of secret-level information to work on a classified thesis project served only three months behind bars. Kenneth Wayne Ford Jr., who was found guilty at trial of bringing home national defense information after leaving the National Security Agency and lying about the case, received a six-year sentence. A former NSA contractor who over two decades amassed a huge trove of highly sensitive material, including hacking tools and details of overseas operations, was sentenced to nine years in prison. A Navy sailor who took pictures of classified areas of a nuclear-powered submarine and then destroyed the evidence was sentenced to a year in prison for retention and obstruction; Trump later pardoned him.

Retired Gen. David H. Petraeus was given probation after pleading guilty to sharing classified information with his biographer. At the time, the crime of mishandling classified information — as opposed to national defense information — was a misdemeanor with a maximum punishment of a year behind bars. It became a felony during Trump’s presidency.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va ... documents/
“Do not grow old, no matter how long you live. Never cease to stand like curious children before the Great Mystery into which we were born.” Albert Einstein
User avatar
ti-amie United States of America
Posts: 22983
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 4:44 pm
Location: The Boogie Down, NY
Has thanked: 5302 times
Been thanked: 3284 times

Honorary_medal

Re: Tiny is Indicted

#59

Post by ti-amie »

“Do not grow old, no matter how long you live. Never cease to stand like curious children before the Great Mystery into which we were born.” Albert Einstein
User avatar
ti-amie United States of America
Posts: 22983
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 4:44 pm
Location: The Boogie Down, NY
Has thanked: 5302 times
Been thanked: 3284 times

Honorary_medal

Re: Tiny is Indicted

#60

Post by ti-amie »

“Do not grow old, no matter how long you live. Never cease to stand like curious children before the Great Mystery into which we were born.” Albert Einstein
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests