The Omnibus P01135809 Criminal Investigation Thread

@Raoul the Red Shirt @The Original Faceman @Fisherman's Worf

THIS IS YOUR BIG SHOT!





Play your cards right and you might can be White House Counsel, Solicitor General or even AG!

As I am both CRAZY and a TRUE AMERICAN PATRIOT, I would be an ideal choice to serve as your appellate counsel in this matter.

Nah, but I'll take his (campaign contribution) money.

@Ancalagon you forgot to tag @Liet

Liet has been gone for almost as long as they were an active member.

Reports coming out that Adam Weisselberg perjured himself during the Trump Fraud case, and is currently negotiating the conditions of his guilty plead to 1st degree perjury by giving additional information.

1st degree perjury has a possible sentence of up to 7 years. Weisselberg has already served time for his role as Trump's CFO.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/01/nyregion/weisselberg-perjury-trump-fraud.html

https://abcnews.go.com/US/special-counsel-questioned-witnesses-2-rooms-fbi-search/story?id=106826552

Yeah, and the FBI didn't search the rooms, cuz they were told "there's nothing in there".
Gee, I'm sure every poor person wishes they could go "there's nothing there" when they're being searched for pot, and have the cop go "...okay".

Saul wouldn't represent Trump unless he paid cash upfront, Saul's no sucker

But Trump was treated soooooo unfairly!

Not unexpected news.


Federal judge postpones trial in Trump’s DC election interference case

Can’t say I’m surprised given the delay on the immunity appeal ruling. But I am annoyed.

https://bsky.app/profile/nycsouthpaw.bsky.social/post/3kkihngamnk2k

The Objection that Enforcing Section Three is "Undemocratic" (reason.com)

What about democracy?! We should let the people vote for whomever they want!

Perhaps the most common objection to enforcing Section Three is that doing so would be "undemocratic" in some sense. Taking Section Three seriously, and applying its constitutional disqualification rigorously, it is said, would interfere with the right to vote. It would impair the right of the people to select their own leaders. It would be contrary to democracy. It would be downright unAmerican!

So the charge goes. In reality, this is more a political objection than a truly legal one (though it is sometimes cast in legal terms). It is ultimately an objection to Section Three itself – an objection to what the Constitution says and does. It is at bottom an anti-constitutional argument – an argument for not complying with what the Constitution requires. In the end, the argument, notwithstanding whatever rhetorical appeal it might have, is wholly unpersuasive as a legal matter.

This objection comes in many rhetorical forms:

"Removing an opposition candidate from the ballot," we are told, "through the exercise of judicial power is a remarkably antidemocratic act."

"To bar Mr. Trump from the ballot now would be the wrong way to show him to the exits of the political system, after all these years of strife."

"If the arguments for disqualification are iffy, they should be rejected and the question of Mr. Trump's fitness for office left to the voters to decide."

These are different ways of saying much the same thing. However cast, the substance of the objection is always pretty much the same.

The argument has a certain intuitive appeal: everybody supports "democracy" as an abstract proposition. But all versions of the argument share a common analytic flaw: they beg the relevant legal question entirely.


We begin with first principles. Our democracy is a constitutional democracy. The Constitution both channels and constrains democratic choice, and Section Three is one of those many constraints. It is a fundamental feature of the supreme Law of the Land. Accordingly, once we figure out exactly what constraints Section Three in fact imposes, that should settle the matter. The "democracy" objection is thus a complete red herring. If the Constitution imposes such a disqualification, that is indeed a limitation on voting and democratic choice. But it is a limitation that must be honored in a constitutional republic that imposes specific limitations and checks on the democratic political process.

The fact that the Constitution both channels and constrains democratic choice is evident from many different provisions. The Constitution constrains what government may do. It limits—through its grant of only limited federal powers, through its restrictions on state powers, and through its protection of individual rights—what democratic majorities can do, whether through Congress, through the states, or even through popular referenda. As the Supreme Court memorably put it in the case of West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, the Constitution removes certain matters "from the vicissitudes of political controversy," placing them "beyond the reach of majorities and officials." Where the Constitution speaks to a question, such matters "may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." No matter how big the electoral majority, the Constitution is higher law that ordinary elections cannot change.

The Constitution's rules governing the elections and the electoral process are likewise supreme law. As to the specific question of eligibility for elected office, the Constitution restricts the right to vote, indirectly, by restricting who is eligible to hold specified elected offices. The President must be at least thirty-five years old. The President must be a "natural born" U.S. citizen, rather than a naturalized immigrant. The President must have been a resident of the United States for 14 years. The President must not have been elected to the presidency twice before. Age, residency, and citizenship restrictions all apply to Senators and Representatives as well.

All of these restrictions limit democratic choice. All of them could be decried as "undemocratic" in that sense. We cannot vote for former presidents Barack Obama or George W. Bush or Bill Clinton because they are disqualified from the presidency by the Twenty-second amendment. We cannot vote for former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger because, having been born in Austria to Austrian parents, he is constitutionally ineligible to be president. We cannot by our votes constitutionally choose a twenty-five year old for president. We cannot select a dead man, or a live dog, to be president, as neither one is a constitutionally eligible "person" within the meaning of the Constitution. All of these provisions limit the right of the people to elect whomever they wish. All of these provisions are in that sense "undemocratic." Are they all equally subject to condemnation in the pages of the New York Times? Are these provisions of the Constitution un-American?

This point runs deeper too. It runs to the structure of presidential elections themselves. In 2016, one of the candidates for President, Hillary Clinton, won a majority of the population's vote for President. But the other candidate, Donald Trump, became President because of the plain rules of the Constitution, which decides the presidency through the electoral college, and thus the electoral vote, even if that is not what a majority of the voters chose. Donald Trump lost the 2016 popular election by almost three million votes, but became President nonetheless because we follow the Constitution, not simple majority votes. That is "undemocratic," in a sense, but it is also basic constitutional law. ​

Special counsel mounts forceful — and unusual — defense of Trump classified documents case - POLITICO


“It is necessary to set the record straight on the underlying facts that led to this prosecution,” the prosecutors argued. “The government will clear the air on those issues … because the defendants’ misstatements, if unanswered, leave a highly misleading impression.”

What followed was a lengthy recitation of the events that led prosecutors to suspect Trump had been squirreling reams of classified records at his Mar-a-Lago estate. Rather than the bloodthirsty partisan endeavor Trump describes, prosecutors say federal officials from the National Archives, intelligence community and White House counsel’s office took “measures” and “incremental” steps to retrieve the documents — often in coordination with some of Trump’s own designated advisers — before escalating the matter as the former president continued to resist.

The approach taken in the legal brief is somewhat unusual for the Justice Department. Though the filing was submitted to U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, at times it sounded like an opening argument to a jury Trump could face in the future or the first chapter of a report meant to detail investigative findings to the public.

It’s unclear whether the “misimpressions” prosecutors say they’re trying to correct are ones they fear Cannon could fall prey to, whether the target audience for the brief is a larger one, and how the Fort Pierce, Fla.-based Trump appointee will respond to the tactic.

The substance of the prosecution brief is aimed at countering the demands by Trump and his two co-defendants — Walt Nauta and Carlos DeOliveira — for access to a broad range of documents from across the government that the defense attorneys contend could be useful in defending their clients. They’ve asked Cannon to consider massive executive branch agencies and the White House as appendages of Smith’s prosecution team — a decision that could open their files to defendants beyond the typical evidence-sharing that occurs for witnesses in criminal proceedings.



The filing included some new details about the origins of the probe, particularly as Trump’s liaisons to the National Archives began a dialogue with key White House officials about how to facilitate the return of missing documents. Though Trump has long portrayed the Biden White House’s involvement in the process as a sign of sinister politics, Smith’s team described it as limited, necessary and well-known to Trump’s aides, who did not protest.

That was a running theme throughout the prosecutors’ filing: Where Trump spoke in ominous terms about a monolithic “Biden administration” acting against him, the reality was that career officials from multiple agencies, acting on their discrete responsibilities, took standard and even “innocuous” actions to fulfill their duties, according to the brief.

The brief is also peppered with factual claims that make Trump’s behavior sound more serious and egregious. When discussing the defense’s request for more information from the Secret Service, prosecutors assert that their interaction with the federal agency that guards the president and his family underscored Trump’s recklessness in keeping a large volume of classified information at his Florida home, which also serves as a social club and a site for political and social events with lengthy guest lists.

Not surprisingly, the D.C. Court of Appeals has ruled that Trump is not above the law. Haven't read the decision yet, but it's here.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24409134-read-trump-immunity-ruling

OK, so I guess we are just waiting for @Uncle Albert and @Steal Your Face to get the new talking points about how the supreme court will rule in his favor?

I really thought Russian AI chatbots would be a bit quicker. Perhaps Putin should actually invest on a computer rather than two idiots in a box that says cumpootor. Why the fuck is @Jenee rubbing up against the box like a cat in heat?

My understanding is that the outcome was a given. The idea that the president is a king is absurd on its face. Only question was how long could the FedSoc judge try and run out the clock.

Answer is two months.

https://bsky.app/profile/mmfa.bsky.social/post/3kkrf734fmd2e

Don't know anything about the judges who issued this ruling, but my sense is this is a relatively quick turnaround for a federal court to issue an opinion even if there would have been justification for it to be "LOL, NO" rather than the 57 pages it is. The judges exposed the obvious weakness of the argument: if you say a president has absolute immunity for crimes committed in office except through impeachment, then a president can simply order Seal Team Six (or whoever) to kill any rivals or anyone who would attempt to impeach him and remain perpetually immune for those actions.

It's a real question if SCOTUS decides to take up the case or if they just allow the decision to stand. Hopefully it's the latter. There don't seem to be good arguments to take up the decision except to delay the criminal proceedings.

How many important stories does MSNBC and CNN ignore any given day?

They do seem to be ignoring the obvious one about the brain dead subway sammich making teenager in VA.

Oral arguments made it pretty clear one of the judges thought that the American Oversight amicus brief was compelling. Since the decision ended up 3-0 (probably to make an en banc rehearing much easier to deny) I expect the delay was from the other two finding convincing enough case law to not follow those recommendations. Since denying interlocutory appellate jurisdiction here would have meant that Trump could have had another go at an immunity appeal (at least another 2 months) after conviction, this extra week probably saved a lot of time down the road. And yes, hopefully SCOTUS doesn’t take it up.

In terms of things like decisions from a court or other official bodies/agencies, I'd dare say none.

For any "important" stories that you might say that they ignore, I'd say that one or more of the following is true:
1. It's not truly important/interesting/novel or otherwise newsworthy
2. It's not a breaking story that justifies a new story beyond previous times that the subject has already been covered
3. It more has to do with opinion rather than objective journalism
4. There is a sourcing issue or some other journalistic/logistical problem that means reporting on the subject should be delayed.
5. They in fact did not largely ignore the story. They just covered it less than you liked or in a way you didn't like.

Those sorts of things do not apply to why Fox News did not cover an obviously important story in this decision.

He seems to be taking the news well.

Would you say journalists doing research to find out the origin of Covid and finding out that there was gain of function research going on in Wuhan is a newsworthy story?

Good thing you don't decide what is and isn't newsworthy because I'm guessing you'd let a lot of stuff that people should be aware of slip through the cracks.

OR … or, you could be grasping at straws.

Never mind