And now Trump has been formally subpoenaed to appear before the Jan 6 Committee. just hours after Bannon was sentenced to four months in prison for not complying with a subpoena to appear before the committee.
According to the terms of the subpœna, documents are to be turned over no later than 10:00 am EDT on November 4. Trump's subpœnaed testimony is scheduled for 10:00 am EST on November 14. I see three possibilities.
Trump complies with the subpœna and testifies
Trump complies with the subpœna and pleads the Fifth
Trump defies the subpœna, providing neither documents nor testimony
While he does like the spotlight Trump has always been a coward when personal jeopardy is a possibility so I'm guessing #3 is the most likely. Anyone else want to speculate?
And now Trump has been formally subpoenaed to appear before the Jan 6 Committee. just hours after Bannon was sentenced to four months in prison for not complying with a subpoena to appear before the committee.
I doubt that that was a coincidence.
Distinctly possible, though given the extensive and detailed list of the documents that are being requested it was probably more about making sure they didn't overlook anything. I find item 14 on the attached schedule to be the most interesting. It requests any communication received between November 3, 2020 and January 6, 2021 to or from:
Roger Stone
Stephen Bannon
Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, U.S. Army (Ret.)
Jeffrey Clark
John Eastman
Rudolph Giuliani
Jenna Ellis
Sidney Powell
Kenneth Chesebro
Boris Epshteyn
Christina Bobb
Cleta Mitchell
Patrick Byrne
So this seems to be the January 6 Committee's picture of Trump's inner circle and most active (metaphorical) footsoldiers. His thirteen apostles of sedition, if you will.
I'm totally guessing, but I suspect Trump will do a halfway cooperation thing--namely, fail to provide the documents (or most of them), and take the fifth for as much as they corner him for--probably by video, since that option exists--and THEN claim he has been fully cooperative, and is the victim of his alleged everlasting witch hunt.
I'm guessing he'll do this because recently he seems to be trying to ride two or more horses at the same time, most notably in the "special master" case. He seems afraid to commit himself to overt defiance anymore. Less bluster, more whining.
I am thinking Trump will wait out the time. Assuming the Republicans win House of Representatives, the clock for the committee runs out 30 December 2022. He will just run out the clock.
I am thinking Trump will wait out the time. Assuming the Republicans win House of Representatives, the clock for the committee runs out 30 December 2022. He will just run out the clock.
That wouldn't prevent a criminal referral such as Mr Bannon received.
If the house and senate elections go the way most observers now expect (i.e. in favour of the Republicans), I'm guessing that Trump will not face any criminal charges, let alone go to jail, as he IMHO so richly deserves.
If the house and senate elections go the way most observers now expect (i.e. in favour of the Republicans), I'm guessing that Trump will not face any criminal charges, let alone go to jail, as he IMHO so richly deserves.
The Justice Department will be in Democratic hands until at least the beginning of 2025 so the jury's still out (if you'll pardon the pun) on that one. What it probably does mean is that Trump will wriggle out of testifying before the January 6th committee, and avoid possible prison time for contempt of congress. That doesn't rule out prosecution for his actions that have already been revealed.
Where is @Crœsos when we need him? I'm afraid I can't recall (or readily locate) guidance provided by the US Constitution re: electing presidents who are serving sentences for violating state laws . . .
Where is @Crœsos when we need him? I'm afraid I can't recall (or readily locate) guidance provided by the US Constitution re: electing presidents who are serving sentences for violating state laws . . .
The U.S. Constitution doesn't forbid electing a felon as president, even one currently serving a sentence. The only requirement is that the president be alive, a natural born citizen*, at least 35 years old, and "fourteen Years a Resident within the United States".
Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment disqualifies anyone from holding "any office, civil or military, under the United States" if they "have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the [ the United States ], or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof". That is arguably applicable to Trump. Interestingly this bar on office-holding is not subject to presidential pardon, but rather can be dismissed "by a vote of two-thirds of each House [ of Congress ]". In part because this isn't a criminal penalty (no one has a right to hold elected or appointed office), but mostly for historically contingent reasons. The men who drafted the Fourteenth Amendment knew that Andrew Johnson would just mass-pardon the worst Confederate traitors if he had the opportunity.
* "or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution", in case you were wondering how the Framers got around that requirement themselves.
Do (can?) any of the states impose additional restrictions on who can be on their ballot for President?
California tried to require candidates for president and governor release five years worth of tax returns in order to appear on that state's primary ballot. That was eventually ruled unconstitutional.
Well, the Supreme Court, in a two sentence statement, has declined to hear Trump's argument that Congress should obtain his tax records, letting the lower court decision stand. While it is true the House of Representatives will be changing to the Republicans within a few weeks, the US Senate will likely stay in Democratic hands. It could be that the Senate will take the lead investigating Trump's tax returns.
In other news, the Department of Justice has asked the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit to over turn the ruling authorizing a special master to review the documents that were seized in the FBI search of Mar a Lago.
This is to say nothing about the state and civil cases Trump is fighting elsewhere.
How does this man have time to run for the office of President again with all these balls up in the air?
In other news, the Department of Justice has asked the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit to over turn the ruling authorizing a special master to review the documents that were seized in the FBI search of Mar a Lago.
Can someone please explain the arguments for and against this? As it stands, it looks to us that the DoJ is making a pro-Trump step.
In other news, the Department of Justice has asked the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit to over turn the ruling authorizing a special master to review the documents that were seized in the FBI search of Mar a Lago.
Can someone please explain the arguments for and against this? As it stands, it looks to us that the DoJ is making a pro-Trump step.
Having a special master review the seized classified documents seized from the Mar-A-Lago raid was Trump's request. The DoJ is arguing that a special master is unnecessary and any review can be done by the FBI as part of their regular investigation, as would be done with any other material secured via a lawfully issued warrant. From the Washington Post:
But that argument didn’t seem to win over the judges, who repeatedly said Trump’s team has not proven that he needs these items returned to him or that the search was an overreach. Chief Judge William H. Pryor Jr. voiced concern about the precedent the case could create by allowing the target of a search warrant to go into court and request a special master that could interfere with an executive branch investigation before an indictment is ever issued.
A judge directly asked Trusty if anyone who is the subject of a federal search should be allowed to request a special master. Trusty responded that this search is unique, saying Trump is a “political rival” of the sitting president.
Pryor also seemed to criticize Trump’s team for asking for a special master without proving that the search was illegal.
“If you can’t establish that it was unlawful,” he said, “then what are we doing here?”
In other words, Trump's delaying tactics do not seem to impress even Republican-appointed judges. There has never been a credible privilege claim from Trump relating to these classified documents.
Do we know why he had those security-sensitive papers? I can only think either he wanted them for some illicit purpose (eg selling to an enemy of the US) or he demonstrated staggering incompetence when relocating his own stuff to his private property in Florida.
Do we know why he had those security-sensitive papers? I can only think either he wanted them for some illicit purpose (eg selling to an enemy of the US) or he demonstrated staggering incompetence when relocating his own stuff to his private property in Florida.
Bragging. Wave them at guests to show how important he is.
Do we know why he had those security-sensitive papers? I can only think either he wanted them for some illicit purpose (eg selling to an enemy of the US) or he demonstrated staggering incompetence when relocating his own stuff to his private property in Florida.
Bragging. Wave them at guests to show how important he is.
Yes, of course. Achieving nothing, and doing it with no further thought of the obvious consequences.
Do we know why he had those security-sensitive papers? I can only think either he wanted them for some illicit purpose (eg selling to an enemy of the US) or he demonstrated staggering incompetence when relocating his own stuff to his private property in Florida.
Bragging. Wave them at guests to show how important he is.
Also compulsive contrariness. The more the federal government asked for the return of the documents the more Trump was inclined to refuse the request, because 'you're not the boss of me'.
Selling to the Russians. Probably not his idea. Probably the Russians' idea. That's my opinion.
Given assorted lengths he's already gone to in stiffing assorted creditors, that seems not only possible but even probable. And whether his idea or not, it's still potentially treasonous.
The fact that quite a few of the folders with classified markings are empty suggests dire things. If he were simply waving them around to show how important he was, I wouldn't expect so many to have gone, ahem, "missing."
Narcissists love to collect trophies to give the impression that they are very important people. Remember, he also refused to concede the race so he kept things to prove he was still president. Some months ago I received a fund raising letter purportedly signed by DJT. The letter head said The Trump White House. I did not respond.
They do, but this behavior also makes a very convenient smokescreen for straight out betrayal and sale of national secrets. If he can convince everyone it’s just a harmless ego thing, he may avoid accountability. So I prefer not to give that explanation much airtime, as it tends to comfort those who really ought to stay alarmed and alert (eg voters).
They do, but this behavior also makes a very convenient smokescreen for straight out betrayal and sale of national secrets. If he can convince everyone it’s just a harmless ego thing, he may avoid accountability. So I prefer not to give that explanation much airtime, as it tends to comfort those who really ought to stay alarmed and alert (eg voters).
While we are trying to understand DJT's drives, it does not excuse the crime.
Selling to the Russians. Probably not his idea. Probably the Russians' idea. That's my opinion.
Given assorted lengths he's already gone to in stiffing assorted creditors, that seems not only possible but even probable. And whether his idea or not, it's still potentially treasonous.
Under the category of "There He Goes Again." Trump had a dinner with Ye, a.k.a Kanye West and and Nick Fuentes, a twenty four year old white supremist who rose to prominence during the Unite the Right March in Charleston, SC. Trump was reported to say he liked Fuentes because: "He understands me." Fuentes knew the best way to impress the former president was to flatter him. Narcissists love flattery.
Selling to the Russians. Probably not his idea. Probably the Russians' idea. That's my opinion.
Given assorted lengths he's already gone to in stiffing assorted creditors, that seems not only possible but even probable. And whether his idea or not, it's still potentially treasonous.
Under the category of "There He Goes Again." Trump had a dinner with Ye, a.k.a Kanye West and and Nick Fuentes, a twenty four year old white supremist who rose to prominence during the Unite the Right March in Charleston, SC. Trump was reported to say he liked Fuentes because: "He understands me." Fuentes knew the best way to impress the former president was to flatter him. Narcissists love flattery.
I guess the question is whether having dinner with a noted anti-Semite and white supremacist will hurt the reputations of Ye or Fuentes.
Under the category of "There He Goes Again." Trump had a dinner with Ye, a.k.a Kanye West and and Nick Fuentes, a twenty four year old white supremist who rose to prominence during the Unite the Right March in Charleston, SC. Trump was reported to say he liked Fuentes because: "He understands me." Fuentes knew the best way to impress the former president was to flatter him. Narcissists love flattery.
I guess the question is whether having dinner with a noted anti-Semite and white supremacist will hurt the reputations of Ye or Fuentes.
I have a suspicion that all three might be considered legally undefamable at this point. What could possibly be said that would make their reputations worse? (hosts: that's rhetorical rather than an invitation to creative libel)
There's a really high bar to clear for libel/slander of public people. Much higher than that for ordinary folks, and complicated by the need to show actual damage done by the libel/slander (and not, say, by their own words and actions). I agree that for practical purposes, they are probably undefamable--unless accused of a wildly different crime (yeah, not supplying examples here).
Well, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals slapped down Trump's request for a special master. They remanded it to the lower court with specific instructions to dismiss the request. Poor baby. The three justices who heard the case were all appointed by Republicans. It is good to see some justices are not bound by loyalty to party but to the rule of law. My faith in our Judicial system has increased--a bit.
Well, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals slapped down Trump's request for a special master. They remanded it to the lower court with specific instructions to dismiss the request. Poor baby. The three justices who heard the case were all appointed by Republicans. It is good to see some justices are not bound by loyalty to party but to the rule of law. My faith in our Judicial system has increased--a bit.
I think two of the three judges were appointed to their current positions by Trump himself.
Maybe the lawyers here can speak to this better than I can, but it seems attorneys will tell their clients not to even post on social media because they do not want their client to say any thing inculpatory to the case, like when a certain person who claims he did nothing wrong on January 6, 2021 that would be construed as sedition two years later when he writes that certain provisions of the constitution should be suspended and he be returned to power. Correct me if I am wrong, but it would seem a certain prosecutor could use such a statement in a cross examination to rip the other person's defense to shreds.
Maybe the lawyers here can speak to this better than I can, but it seems attorneys will tell their clients not to even post on social media because they do not want their client to say any thing inculpatory to the case, like when a certain person who claims he did nothing wrong on January 6, 2021 that would be construed as sedition two years later when he writes that certain provisions of the constitution should be suspended and he be returned to power. Correct me if I am wrong, but it would seem a certain prosecutor could use such a statement in a cross examination to rip the other person's defense to shreds.
Well yes. Publicly declaring that the U.S. Constitution should be "terminated" so you can be installed as dictator is pretty seditionish, but if Trump's advisors, political or legal, had any ability to stop him from making self-incriminating public statements wouldn't they have done so before now?
What's more interesting than Trump saying the same thing he's been saying for years, just more bluntly and directly, is the way no prominent Republican (with the exceptions of apostates Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger) has been willing to denounce Trump's open contempt for the U.S. Constitution. This doesn't necessarily mean they agree with him, but it does imply that they'd be comfortable with the idea if it could be implemented.
According to CNN the January 6 Committee intends to make criminal referrals to the Department of Justice before issuing their final report.
The House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol has decided to make criminal referrals to the Department of Justice, the panel’s chairman, Rep. Bennie Thompson, told reporters Tuesday.
Thompson, a Mississippi Democrat, said the committee has not narrowed down the universe of individuals who may be referred.
Asked whether Thompson believed any witnesses perjured themselves, he said, “that’s part of the discussion.”
So no details on who will be referred or for what. The Committee has already made a few referrals for not complying with its subpœnas, but this seems like something different.
Well yes. Publicly declaring that the U.S. Constitution should be "terminated" so you can be installed as dictator is pretty seditionish, but if Trump's advisors, political or legal, had any ability to stop him from making self-incriminating public statements wouldn't they have done so before now?
Advisors can only advise (hence the title) but can't force their client to accept the advice. If they had any sense, they'd have put their advice onto reams of paper ready for production when needed.
Very pleased to see Trump's stupid Trump Organization found guilty of fucking around and finding out oops, tax evasion and fraud, on all counts. Good job, New York.
This doesn't necessarily mean they agree with him, but it does imply that they'd be comfortable with the idea if it could be implemented.
It could just imply that they're too scared of Trump's base to say anything and crossing their fingers that it won't turn out that they had to. That's the kind of leadership the people have the right to expect from their representatives.
Yes, there will likely be an appeal, but this will only go so far as the State Supreme Court, since it is a state, not federal, issue, as I read it.
Unless one or more of the issues on appeal is that some aspect of the trial violated the Trump Organization’s rights under the federal Constitution, in which case there could be (attempted) appeal to the US Supreme Court on those issues.
And pedantic trivia alert: The highest court in New York is the New York Court of Appeals. In New York, the Supreme Court is a trial court—what in many other states is called superior court. This case was tried in the Supreme Court.
Yes, there will likely be an appeal, but this will only go so far as the State Supreme Court, since it is a state, not federal, issue, as I read it.
Unless one or more of the issues on appeal is that some aspect of the trial violated the Trump Organization’s rights under the federal Constitution, in which case there could be (attempted) appeal to the US Supreme Court on those issues.
And pedantic trivia alert: The highest court in New York is the New York Court of Appeals. In New York, the Supreme Court is a trial court—what in many other states is called superior court. This case was tried in the Supreme Court.
I knew I had given the wrong name to the New York Court of Appeals, but I could not think of the right term.
I would think the Federal Special Prosecutor will take in interest in how the Trump Organization used the same tactics in filing federal tax returns, though. I know the state does not have the power to disband the Trump Org, do the Feds have that power if found guilty on the federal level?
I know the state does not have the power to disband the Trump Org, do the Feds have that power if found guilty on the federal level?
Way outside my (pre-retirement) areas of expertise, but I would think that any power to disband the Trump Organization would rest with the appropriate authority—typically the Secretary of State, but every state is different—of the state where the Trump Organization is incorporated.
Way outside my (pre-retirement) areas of expertise, but I would think that any power to disband the Trump Organization would rest with the appropriate authority—typically the Secretary of State, but every state is different—of the state where the Trump Organization is incorporated.
Comments
I doubt that that was a coincidence.
While he does like the spotlight Trump has always been a coward when personal jeopardy is a possibility so I'm guessing #3 is the most likely. Anyone else want to speculate?
Distinctly possible, though given the extensive and detailed list of the documents that are being requested it was probably more about making sure they didn't overlook anything. I find item 14 on the attached schedule to be the most interesting. It requests any communication received between November 3, 2020 and January 6, 2021 to or from:
So this seems to be the January 6 Committee's picture of Trump's inner circle and most active (metaphorical) footsoldiers. His thirteen apostles of sedition, if you will.
I'm guessing he'll do this because recently he seems to be trying to ride two or more horses at the same time, most notably in the "special master" case. He seems afraid to commit himself to overt defiance anymore. Less bluster, more whining.
That wouldn't prevent a criminal referral such as Mr Bannon received.
The Justice Department will be in Democratic hands until at least the beginning of 2025 so the jury's still out (if you'll pardon the pun) on that one. What it probably does mean is that Trump will wriggle out of testifying before the January 6th committee, and avoid possible prison time for contempt of congress. That doesn't rule out prosecution for his actions that have already been revealed.
The U.S. Constitution doesn't forbid electing a felon as president, even one currently serving a sentence. The only requirement is that the president be alive, a natural born citizen*, at least 35 years old, and "fourteen Years a Resident within the United States".
Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment disqualifies anyone from holding "any office, civil or military, under the United States" if they "have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the [ the United States ], or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof". That is arguably applicable to Trump. Interestingly this bar on office-holding is not subject to presidential pardon, but rather can be dismissed "by a vote of two-thirds of each House [ of Congress ]". In part because this isn't a criminal penalty (no one has a right to hold elected or appointed office), but mostly for historically contingent reasons. The men who drafted the Fourteenth Amendment knew that Andrew Johnson would just mass-pardon the worst Confederate traitors if he had the opportunity.
* "or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution", in case you were wondering how the Framers got around that requirement themselves.
California tried to require candidates for president and governor release five years worth of tax returns in order to appear on that state's primary ballot. That was eventually ruled unconstitutional.
In other news, the Department of Justice has asked the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit to over turn the ruling authorizing a special master to review the documents that were seized in the FBI search of Mar a Lago.
This is to say nothing about the state and civil cases Trump is fighting elsewhere.
How does this man have time to run for the office of President again with all these balls up in the air?
Can someone please explain the arguments for and against this? As it stands, it looks to us that the DoJ is making a pro-Trump step.
Having a special master review the seized classified documents seized from the Mar-A-Lago raid was Trump's request. The DoJ is arguing that a special master is unnecessary and any review can be done by the FBI as part of their regular investigation, as would be done with any other material secured via a lawfully issued warrant. From the Washington Post:
In other words, Trump's delaying tactics do not seem to impress even Republican-appointed judges. There has never been a credible privilege claim from Trump relating to these classified documents.
Bragging. Wave them at guests to show how important he is.
Yes, of course. Achieving nothing, and doing it with no further thought of the obvious consequences.
Also compulsive contrariness. The more the federal government asked for the return of the documents the more Trump was inclined to refuse the request, because 'you're not the boss of me'.
Given assorted lengths he's already gone to in stiffing assorted creditors, that seems not only possible but even probable. And whether his idea or not, it's still potentially treasonous.
While we are trying to understand DJT's drives, it does not excuse the crime.
I'd drop the potentially.
I'd drop the potentially.
I guess the question is whether having dinner with a noted anti-Semite and white supremacist will hurt the reputations of Ye or Fuentes.
:laughing:
I think two of the three judges were appointed to their current positions by Trump himself.
Well yes. Publicly declaring that the U.S. Constitution should be "terminated" so you can be installed as dictator is pretty seditionish, but if Trump's advisors, political or legal, had any ability to stop him from making self-incriminating public statements wouldn't they have done so before now?
What's more interesting than Trump saying the same thing he's been saying for years, just more bluntly and directly, is the way no prominent Republican (with the exceptions of apostates Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger) has been willing to denounce Trump's open contempt for the U.S. Constitution. This doesn't necessarily mean they agree with him, but it does imply that they'd be comfortable with the idea if it could be implemented.
So no details on who will be referred or for what. The Committee has already made a few referrals for not complying with its subpœnas, but this seems like something different.
Advisors can only advise (hence the title) but can't force their client to accept the advice. If they had any sense, they'd have put their advice onto reams of paper ready for production when needed.
Yes, there will likely be an appeal, but this will only go so far as the State Supreme Court, since it is a state, not federal, issue, as I read it.
And pedantic trivia alert: The highest court in New York is the New York Court of Appeals. In New York, the Supreme Court is a trial court—what in many other states is called superior court. This case was tried in the Supreme Court.
I knew I had given the wrong name to the New York Court of Appeals, but I could not think of the right term.
I would think the Federal Special Prosecutor will take in interest in how the Trump Organization used the same tactics in filing federal tax returns, though. I know the state does not have the power to disband the Trump Org, do the Feds have that power if found guilty on the federal level?
Is your corporations law State or Federal please?