The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Tue Nov 08, 2022 10:13 pm

I guarantee you that the most important factor driving Trump’s presidential campaign announcement next week is an attempt to head off any potential federal prosecutions. He’s betting that Garland won’t indict a presidential candidate so it won’t be seen as being political. I hope and pray he is wrong.

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Thu Nov 10, 2022 5:58 pm

This is an interesting thread:

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Thu Nov 10, 2022 5:58 pm

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Thu Nov 10, 2022 6:17 pm

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Thu Nov 10, 2022 9:57 pm

Grifman wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 5:58 pm This is an interesting thread:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1590 ... 62784.html

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Sat Nov 12, 2022 1:33 am

CNN

Former President Donald Trump has sued the House select committee investigating January 6, 2021, as a way to challenge its subpoena for documents and his testimony, according to filings in a federal court in Florida.

Trump is challenging both the legitimacy of the committee – which multiple courts have upheld – and is claiming he should be immune from testimony about the time he was president.

Unagi · Post by **Unagi** » Sat Nov 12, 2022 7:05 am

Hasn’t the latter also already once been decided (not that precedence matters anymore) before with some other president???

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Mon Nov 14, 2022 7:46 pm

It's pretty fascinating to watch two national security savvy lawyers essentially calling out the Attorney General like this on the eve of the guy announcing a run for President to ... try to poison the well on charges. It's all political now. Indicting him is a political quesition no matter what. So many intelligent folks have pointed out anyone else would be in a dark cell right now. In any case, we might be looking at a world that is much less safe. You can't imagine allies want to share information with us unless they have some guarantees we'll try to protect them.

I'll tell you if it is anything like we are seeing in the private space we are in trouble. I'm constantly dealing with overseas clients who refuse to host even non-confidential/diagnostic data anywhere in the United States now. They do not trust us.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Mon Nov 14, 2022 8:08 pm

I'm but a regular citizen so I'm completely out of my depth here, but it just feels like maybe there should have been enough information over the last ~2 years to possibly bring charges. Again, maybe I'm totally wrong, but I'd love to hear the argument that slow rolling this out while TFG has been fundraising, motivating dangerous people and now (apparently) getting ready to run for office in 2024 was a solid plan.

I get that we're in uncharted waters - potentially charging a former President with all sorts of heinous crimes. But I refuse to believe the corollary to that is to just let him to continue to do whatever he wants unchecked.

Alternatively, if it really takes 2+ years to come at the King, then we were totally screwed from the get-go.

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Mon Nov 14, 2022 8:43 pm

malchior wrote: ↑Mon Nov 14, 2022 7:46 pm It's pretty fascinating to watch two national security savvy lawyers essentially calling out the Attorney General like this on the eve of the guy announcing a run for President to ... try to poison the well on charges. It's all political now. Indicting him is a political quesition no matter what. So many intelligent folks have pointed out anyone else would be in a dark cell right now. In any case, we might be looking at a world that is much less safe. You can't imagine allies want to share information with us unless they have some guarantees we'll try to protect them.

I'll tell you if it is anything like we are seeing in the private space we are in trouble. I'm constantly dealing with overseas clients who refuse to host even non-confidential/diagnostic data anywhere in the United States now. They do not trust us.

Emptywheel follows it better -article link in tweet:

I wrote about how wildly unlikely it would be for DOJ to indict before mid-December because of basic stuff like ... they're not allowed to present the evidence to a grand jury yet.

https://emptywheel.net/2022/11/14/mer

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Mon Nov 14, 2022 8:55 pm

I saw that thread and respect @emptywheel a whole lot. However, there are some elements to consider. They are looking at the activity and saying we shouldn't expect them to be doing more because they are still building a case. That sounds reasonable. Until you look at pretty much every other national security leak case we know about. Even in cases where there was less national security impact the DOJ has often compressed this activity.

Yes there are a lot of complicated factors but I believe these guys (and a lot of other natsec people) wouldn't be making noise unless the stakes were exceedingly high. And in Weissman's case he knows the capability of the DOJ much better than @emptywheel. He is someone I'm going to listen to especially when he is essentially agitating for urgency. This isn't an internet mob demanding justice. You have a guy who has sat at high levels in the DOJ saying WTF is going on. We should take notice.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Mon Nov 14, 2022 11:38 pm

Trump adjacent but not a shock - this was reported months ago as the likely outcome. They had someone turn on him but much like the Gaetz case they probably were afraid to try to make a case only on a cooperating witness without hard evidence. What'd be good enough to pressure plebians to plead out is not good enough to convict patricians who'll take it to trial.

Edit: I'd also hazard that the Barrack prosecution results discourage going after complex foreign lobbying 'white collar' crime.

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Tue Nov 15, 2022 3:31 pm

Trump Org in Court - this thread is crazy:

Examples:

Manhattan DA's office now probing why it got 2 different versions of Trump Org's books.

One from the company, the other from its outside accountants at Mazars.

Both list payments to an expensive NYC prep school for the CFO's grandkids.

But only Mazars' says "per Allen."

Tarasoff reveals that in Sept. 2016—shortly after Trump announced his first presidential run—Allen Weisselberg called her into his office & ordered her to erase his name on tuition payments.

She cleaned up 12 items on the company's general ledger.

The cleanup had begun.

Holy forensic evidence, Batman! Sept. 26, 2016 was a busy day on Trump Tower's 26th floor.

Digital entries show that Jeff McConney joined Deborah Tarasoff in deleting a bunch of lines from the company's books.

They made sure there'd be no evidence the CFO got untaxed benefits.

What happened that day, while Trump Org employees deleted evidence of a crime?

Politico asked if Trump was qualified to be president.

American U's Allan Lichtman predicted Trump would win.

And that night, Trump debated Hillary Clinton, saying dodging taxes "makes me smart.”

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Thu Nov 17, 2022 11:55 pm

Andrew Weissman and several ex-DOJ heavy hitters released today a "pros memo" - a ~170 page memo that is written in the format of official internal DOJ documents that would be prepared for prosecution decisions. They conclude based on the *public information* that Trump should be charged with several crimes. I skimmed some earlier and just saw Neal Katyal say that it is pretty compelling. Again if this was any other person he'd be in jail *right now*. The pressure on Garland is pretty immense but this turns up the temperature on this test. His own community is telling him that he has to act.

Pros memo

Our memo analyzes six federal crimes:
Mishandling of Government Documents

1. Retention of National Defense Information (18 U.S.C. § 793(e))
2. Concealing Government Records (18 U.S.C. § 2071)
3. Conversion of Government Property (18 U.S.C. § 641)

Obstruction, False Information, Contempt
1. Obstruction of Justice (18 U.S.C. § 1519)
2. Criminal Contempt (18 U.S.C. § 402)
3. False Statements to Federal Investigators (18 U.S.C. § 1001)

Based on the publicly available information to date, a powerful case exists for charging Trump
under several of these federal criminal statutes.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Fri Nov 18, 2022 2:51 pm

I'll check this out once but folks I've heard weigh on this in the last week thought this was a bad idea. The chief downside I gathered is it essentially potentially will add more delay to a slow as molasses process that has been failing justice and our democracy. It also doesn't do anything to alleviate any of the political questions Garland is hopelessly trying to avoid.

Edit: Forgot the upside - it does come with transparency. A special counsel has to release a report on the decision versus the DOJ keeping it confidential. That'll be running into classification concerns so I don't know how well it'll hold up.

Edit 2: Lisa Rubin was on MSNBC and she was pretty negative on this. Apparently she is confused because they are mid-process on issues in front of the appeals court (e.g. getting rid of the special master) and it'll introduce more confusion/delay there as well.

Edit 3: Frank Figliuzzi formerly of the FBI is pretty negative on this as well. His point - either the DOJ can handle their job or they can't. This will not help with the political situation. His take is this is not surprising - Garland is trying to preserve the institution of the DOJ.

Edit 4: Predictably we are already pretty instantly hearing voices on the right slamming this as even more politicization.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Fri Nov 18, 2022 3:31 pm

Garland just laid out a case that I'm sure won't come back to bite us. Part of his rationale was that Trump is running and Biden will re-run for President. Trump thought he could buy himself another delay and Garland just confirmed that.

Octavious · Post by **Octavious** » Fri Nov 18, 2022 4:10 pm

#IGIVEUP

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Fri Nov 18, 2022 4:14 pm

Maybe this is just a trick to get TFG to crime even harder? Yeah, probably not. Unreal. Nice country we had.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Fri Nov 18, 2022 4:21 pm

The Special Counsel (Jack Smith) could definitely come in and move to indict but it is hard to think it'll be quick. It's just a matter that if the goal was to de-politicize it...it was pure folly.

Octavious · Post by **Octavious** » Fri Nov 18, 2022 4:23 pm

Let's guess what will happen. This will drag on for 18 more months with nothing happening and then oh wait there's an election surely we can't do anything now! Rinse repeat... I wish we all could avoid following the law by delaying court cases until they don't matter anymore. It's such a neat trick. And to think everyone thought he would be an amazing SC judge.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Fri Nov 18, 2022 4:31 pm

Well SC judge is way different than this role. He might have been a great SC justice. He however a terrible AG in the context of the current crisis. He simply was the guy you picked if going by the book and probably failing is better than being more aggressive and and maybe protecting our democracy.

Alefroth · Post by **Alefroth** » Fri Nov 18, 2022 4:37 pm

Octavious wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 4:23 pm Let's guess what will happen. This will drag on for 18 more months with nothing happening and then oh wait there's an election surely we can't do anything now! Rinse repeat... I wish we all could avoid following the law by delaying court cases until they don't matter anymore. It's such a neat trick. And to think everyone thought he would be an amazing SC judge.

McConnell's ploy continues to pay dividends.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Fri Nov 18, 2022 4:40 pm

A lot of institutionalists talking about how good a decision this is. This was a worth a chuckle in response to that.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Fri Nov 18, 2022 4:45 pm

malchior wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 4:21 pm The Special Counsel (Jack Smith) could definitely come in and move to indict but it is hard to think it'll be quick. It's just a matter that if the goal was to de-politicize it...it was pure folly.

Do we know much about Jack Smith?

Intuitively I don't love this decision either, but to the extent that there were real questions about Garland's willingness to pull the trigger, if Smith is more inclined to do so, maybe it's not the worst thing in the world.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Fri Nov 18, 2022 5:01 pm

El Guapo wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 4:45 pm
malchior wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 4:21 pm The Special Counsel (Jack Smith) could definitely come in and move to indict but it is hard to think it'll be quick. It's just a matter that if the goal was to de-politicize it...it was pure folly.
Do we know much about Jack Smith?

Intuitively I don't love this decision either, but to the extent that there were real questions about Garland's willingness to pull the trigger, if Smith is more inclined to do so, maybe it's not the worst thing in the world.

The folks on MSNBC said he was a competent and relatively aggression public corruption guy so he's a good choice in abstract. At the same time I don't care. Over and over we're told to let the process work. In the end this has become prosperous. I don't think anyone could point at any case where someone was caught with the most classified documents in the country and not faced imminent and overwhelming consequences.

Or had such an overwhelming choir of top ex-DOJ people literally saying there is a clear case to immediately indict him. I've seen enough. If he was anyone else he'd be in jail right now so all this talk about how no one is above the law? It's bullshit. Much like the notion that justice is blind in this nation. If this is how the system is supposed to work, then it needed to be changed anyway. It's broken.

Kurth · Post by **Kurth** » Fri Nov 18, 2022 5:06 pm

malchior wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 4:31 pm Well SC judge is way different than this role. He might have been a great SC justice. He however a terrible AG in the context of the current crisis. He simply was the guy you picked if going by the book and probably failing is better than being more aggressive and and maybe protecting our democracy.

Doesn’t this maybe argue that this is a good turn of events? I don’t know anything about Smith other than he was at The Hague prosecuting international crimes, but it’s hard for me to believe he’s going to be slower and more methodical than an investigation with Garland at the top. Seems it’s entirely possible Smith could be a significant upgrade in terms of being more aggressive and maybe protecting our democracy.

Edited to add: What El Guapo said. Sorry to just repeat it. Should have read further!

Alefroth · Post by **Alefroth** » Fri Nov 18, 2022 5:25 pm

It bears repeating.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Fri Nov 18, 2022 5:38 pm

Kurth wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 5:06 pm
malchior wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 4:31 pm Well SC judge is way different than this role. He might have been a great SC justice. He however a terrible AG in the context of the current crisis. He simply was the guy you picked if going by the book and probably failing is better than being more aggressive and and maybe protecting our democracy.
Doesn’t this maybe argue that this is a good turn of events? I don’t know anything about Smith other than he was at The Hague prosecuting international crimes, but it’s hard for me to believe he’s going to be slower and more methodical than an investigation with Garland at the top. Seems it’s entirely possible Smith could be a significant upgrade in terms of being more aggressive and maybe protecting our democracy.

But Garland still is at the top! Now I don't think Garland would overrule him but Garland is still in the chain. This isn't an independent counsel.

The way I see it is that it's another layer of bureaucracy and delay injected into what has been a process that's pace is potentially (even likely) damaging to national security interests and the interests of justice. In particular, the national security aspect of this case keeps getting lost but it's huge. The reason we are typically so firm on national security damage is for several reasons. And all of that went out the window because it's Trump.

The security breach (which could be ongoing) is doing real damage. And all to bend over backwards in a way that betrays that justice is equal under the law. The fact that additional Trump properties haven't been searched is extremely concerning and we don't see any talk about this but it stands to reason our partners see what is happening. I can't imagine they aren't extremely concerned now.

Edit: One other thing that points in this being a possible consideration is Smith is an investigator with international experience. He might have been selected to calm our international partners.

pr0ner · Post by **pr0ner** » Fri Nov 18, 2022 6:35 pm

As a counterpoint to "oh nos the sky is falling" that permeates EVERY discussion here of EVERY piece of news that ever comes out anymore:

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Fri Nov 18, 2022 7:38 pm

pr0ner wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 6:35 pm As a counterpoint to "oh nos the sky is falling" that permeates EVERY discussion here of EVERY piece of news that ever comes out anymore:

Perhaps it is just that lots of folks are fed up after we've seen the same show playing out over and over again. And I assure you it isn't just here. I heard this tenor on the topic playing out in several discussions elsewhere including in the media.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Fri Nov 18, 2022 8:03 pm

FWIW a last word on this but I completely agree with this (threadreader through the link)

We are literally six years into watching legal developments related to Trump repeatedly slow things down to a crawl or outright stop.

Every single time, pundits insist the new development won’t delay things.

Every single time, they have been wrong.

Every time. Every. One.

...

The insistence that HUGE CASES are somehow immune to HOW THE ENTIRE SYSTEM WORKS is so delusional, it is near psychosis.
And I don’t understand it.

It is absurdly, agonizingly irrational and it is absurdly, agonizingly served up as wisdom.

No matter how many times they’re proven wrong, they learn nothing from it.

It’s like a weird religion where The Rule of Law is the imaginary god.

...

At this point, just being honest, I have greatly diminished respect for experts who are incapable of believing, accepting, and admitting objective realities about our justice system no matter how many times they see them firsthand.

You cannot be irrational *and* credible.

...

If the system worked the way pundits insist it does; we wouldn’t be in 2022 with an unindicted Trump.

Kurth · Post by **Kurth** » Fri Nov 18, 2022 8:38 pm

malchior wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 8:03 pm FWIW a last word on this but I completely agree with this (threadreader through the link)

We are literally six years into watching legal developments related to Trump repeatedly slow things down to a crawl or outright stop.

Every single time, pundits insist the new development won’t delay things.

Every single time, they have been wrong.

Every time. Every. One.

...

The insistence that HUGE CASES are somehow immune to HOW THE ENTIRE SYSTEM WORKS is so delusional, it is near psychosis.
And I don’t understand it.

It is absurdly, agonizingly irrational and it is absurdly, agonizingly served up as wisdom.

No matter how many times they’re proven wrong, they learn nothing from it.

It’s like a weird religion where The Rule of Law is the imaginary god.

...

At this point, just being honest, I have greatly diminished respect for experts who are incapable of believing, accepting, and admitting objective realities about our justice system no matter how many times they see them firsthand.

You cannot be irrational *and* credible.

...

If the system worked the way pundits insist it does; we wouldn’t be in 2022 with an unindicted Trump.

That makes no sense. Maybe I’m just misunderstanding the point he’s trying to make, but he seems wildly internally inconsistent.

pr0ner · Post by **pr0ner** » Fri Nov 18, 2022 8:52 pm

Sure, let's all listen to an anonymous horse on Twitter.

Zaxxon · Post by **Zaxxon** » Fri Nov 18, 2022 9:04 pm

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Fri Nov 18, 2022 9:06 pm

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Fri Nov 18, 2022 9:22 pm

pr0ner wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 8:52 pm Sure, let's all listen to an anonymous horse on Twitter.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1169 ... 72352.html

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Fri Nov 18, 2022 9:46 pm

Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 9:22 pm
pr0ner wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 8:52 pm Sure, let's all listen to an anonymous horse on Twitter.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1169 ... 72352.html

He works for Rolling Stone. In any case, they invite nobody randos from Twitter to the White House for meet and greets with administration officials and the 'second gentleman' all the time right? But it's all beside the point. It's a lazy ad hominem.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Fri Nov 18, 2022 9:48 pm

Kurth wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 8:38 pmThat makes no sense. Maybe I’m just misunderstanding the point he’s trying to make, but he seems wildly internally inconsistent.

Did you read the thread? I was just cutting it down a little. The point he is making is that the establishment experts/tv pundits keep telling us how everything is normal. In particular I think he is responding to the coverage I also happened to watch on MSNBC today. Before the Garland announcement several were talking about not understanding the wisdom of appointing a special counsel. One or two were in favor. I'd call it mixed.

Then after the announcement they all pivoted in unison how it was normal and probably wouldn't cause delay. It was jarring to see people questioning the wisdom, talking about the problems, and then memory holing some of it/ignoring what they said minutes ago. This isn't necessarily what he was commenting in but I think the point is that we keep hearing predictions from experts that is too often ends up not being predictive.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Sat Nov 19, 2022 1:40 am

I mentioned it earlier but I was waiting to see the Neal Katyal segment. He talks through the risks here. His main concerns? Needless delay is the chief one. He pretty much openly wonders if Garland simply wasn't up to the task. Yikes. A pretty good summation that acknowledges perhaps Smith will indict quickly.

waitingtoconnect · Post by **waitingtoconnect** » Sat Nov 19, 2022 2:05 am

If Clinton, Obama or Biden had down this they’d either be up before a firing squad or be in a Federal SuperMax.

Look at the Jan 6 hearings evidence. Everyone around Trump was scared they’d all be in jail within the week. That’s why they didn’t act.

If they’d known they face No punishments do you think they’d not have been so scared.