Thread: Legal Charges Against Trump

And another example of why the moron is special:

Trump demands return of seized documents – by order of social media


Donald Trump has demanded the return of some documents seized by the US justice department in an FBI search of his Mar-a-Lago property in Florida last week – apparently under the impression that posts on his Truth Social platform carry legal weight.

In a post on Sunday, the former president wrote: “By copy of this Truth, I respectfully request that these documents be immediately returned to the location from which they were taken. Thank you!”
It is generally held that social media posts are not legal documents.
According to an actual legal document, a search warrant unsealed on Friday, the FBI seized records concerning top secret national security matters.

It has been reported that documents concerning nuclear weapons were among those taken back by federal agents.
Trump has called the nuclear weapons report a “hoax” and claimed to have had authority to declassify top secret records while in office. No evidence has been produced that he did declassify the records in question.
On Saturday, citing anonymous sources, Fox News reported that in the search at Mar-a-Lago last Monday, the FBI seized boxes “containing records covered by attorney-client privilege and potentially executive privilege”.
Fox News also said anonymous sources said the justice department turned down Trump lawyers’ request to have such records reviewed by an independent third party.

Trump’s post on his Truth Social platform – which he launched after being thrown off Twitter over the Capitol attack – appeared to be in response to the Fox News report.
The former president also said: “Oh great! It has just been learned that the FBI, in its now famous raid of Mar-a-Lago, took boxes of privileged ‘attorney-client’ material, and also ‘executive’ privileged material, which they knowingly should not have taken.”

The former president has used claims of mistreatment to boost fundraising and positioning for a potential presidential run in 2024, and his complaints have been echoed by supporters in the Republican party and across the American right.
Among them, the Republican senator Mike Rounds of South Dakota argued on Sunday on NBC’s Meet the Press that releasing the affidavit that persuaded a judge to permit the FBI search “would confirm that there was justification for this raid”.

“The justice department should show that this was not just a fishing expedition,” Rounds said.
The Ohio congressman Mike Turner, the top Republican on the House intelligence committee, added: “We want to know what did the FBI tell them?”

On Sunday, John Dean, who as White House counsel under Richard Nixon played a central role in the Watergate scandal 50 years ago, told CNN Trump and his allies “don’t seem to want to appreciate that the FBI and other federal law enforcement, as well as state and local, they enforce search warrants every day, against every kind of person”.
“And there’s a reason Trump provoked this,” Dean said. “He’s the one who didn’t cooperate. He’s the one who forced [US attorney general] Merrick Garland’s hand. We don’t know what it is [Trump] has or had.
“Garland isn’t a risk-taker. He isn’t a guy whose bold and goes where no one else has ever gone. He’s somebody who does it by the book, so I think these people are going to have egg all over their face when this is over.”

Trump has claimed the Mar-a-Lago search is comparable to the break-in at the Washington offices of the Democratic National Committee in 1972 which fueled and christened the Watergate scandal.
On Saturday, a Fox News host also went to the Nixonian well, citing a famous claim about presidential authority the disgraced 37th president made in an interview with David Frost in 1977.
Will Cain said: “You know, if I listen to alternative media today, and they’re telling me, ‘Oh, classified documents, no one is above the law, right? The rule of law applies to everyone.’

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...i-truth-social

^It’s throwing everything against the wall in desperation.

Here are Trump’s shifting defenses for taking classified documents to Mar-a-Lago

FBI search was unnecessary and inappropriate

Documents were declassified under a standing order

The documents seized are protected by attorney-client and executive privileges

Get read for baldy's sweat greaseball to plead the 5th.

Rudy Giuliani: Donald Trump's former lawyer probed over 'attempts to interfere' in 2020 election result in Georgia | US News | Sky News

In other trump is a failure court news…..

• Weisselberg to plead guilty in Trump tax case

The Trump Organization’s chief financial officer is coming close to reaching a plea deal in a case investigating whether he funneled off-the-books income to himself and other executives at the company, but the potential deal reportedly does not bring prosecutors any closer to their main target: Former President Trump.

The New York Times reported Monday, citing two people with knowledge, that Allen Weisselberg and his lawyers met with a judge and that a hearing is scheduled on Thursday in the case, pointing to a possible agreement being reached by then.

A potential deal might mean Weisselberg faces a far shorter sentence of five months in prison, a person familiar with the matter told the Times.

Prosecutors had hoped that Weisselberg would eventually testify against Trump himself but ultimately refused, despite the potential deal being reached.

Last June, criminal indictments were filed against Weisselberg and the Trump Organization related to charges that the company avoided paying taxes on fringe benefits such as cars, apartments and other bonuses they received through the company.

The case is being investigated by the Manhattan District Attorney’s office, who filed 15 criminal charges against Weisselberg and the Trump Organization, including fraud, conspiracy and falsifying business records. If convicted, the executive could face up to 15 years in prison, though various sentencing factors would likely bring that number down, legal experts have said.

The District Attorney’s office did not immediately return a request for comment from The Hill.

The case is separate from a deposition Trump gave last week related to an investigation by New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) over allegations that the Trump Organization misstated the value of assets and misled lenders and tax authorities.

Trump said he invoked his Fifth Amendment right during the deposition, and his lawyer told the Times afterward that the only question he answered was about his name.

His Mar-a-Lago estate was also searched by the FBI one week ago, in an unprecedented operation in which authorities seized documents, a portion of which were marked classified at the highest levels.

An unsealed search warrant made public Friday revealed that federal law enforcement officials suspect Trump violated the Espionage Act and other laws.

DOJ opposes release of affidavit used to search Trump's Mar-a-Lago home

The Department of Justice said Monday in a court filing that it opposes requests to unseal the affidavit used to obtain a federal judge's permission to search former President Trump's Mar-a-Lago residence.

Driving the news: In a court filing, prosecutors said releasing the affidavit can "harm the government's ongoing criminal investigation."

• They won't, however, oppose the release of other sealed documents tied to the search, including cover sheets and the government's motion to seal.
• The Justice Department's opposition came in response to several news organizations' requests to unseal the affidavit.

What they're saying: "If disclosed, the affidavit would serve as a road map to the government's ongoing investigation, providing specific details about its direction and likely course, in a manner that is highly likely to compromise future investigative steps," U.S. Attorney Juan Antonio Gonzalez and Justice Department counterintelligence chief Jay I. Bratt said in the filing.

• The document has sensitive information about witnesses, prosecutors said, particularly given the high-profile nature of the matter and "the risk that the revelation of witness identities would impact their willingness to cooperate with the investigation."
• The DOJ did not immediately respond to Axios' request for comment.

Catch up quick: The search warrant at Mar-a-Lago was carried out last Monday as part of an ongoing DOJ investigation into the discovery of classified White House records recovered from Trump’s home earlier this year.

• On Thursday, the Justice Department announced it had filed a motion to unseal parts of the search warrant for Trump's Florida residence.
• Trump said he did not oppose the warrant being publicly released.

___________

In other news…….

Tucker Carlson: Trump ‘obviously’ going to be indicted

https://thehill.com/homenews/3603784...o-be-indicted/

• Hearing on unsealing the Mar-a-Lago search warrant affidavit to put DOJ arguments on display

A federal judge in Florida has scheduled a hearing Thursday on whether to unseal the affidavit that federal investigators used to justify a search warrant for former President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago home — a major point of contention between the government and the former president, his supporters and the news media.

The Department of Justice is arguing against unsealing the document for fear it could compromise an “ongoing criminal investigation” involving national security, while Trump and his Republican allies are calling the unprecedented search a major instance of government overreach and demanding the justification be made public. Several media companies, meanwhile, have urged the document be disclosed because of the public's "clear and powerful interest in understanding what occurred in these circumstances."

The hearing comes as investigators sort through the troves of documents — including some labeled top secret and highly classified — that they collected at the Florida resort last week, and prepare to take next steps in the case.

A group of news organizations, including NBC News, has filed court papers asking Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart to make public the affidavit that convinced him to take the extraordinary step of signing the warrant allowing FBI agents to conduct the search.

It was a request U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland himself wrestled with. Garland carefully considered whether to seek a search warrant for Mar-a-Lago over a period of few weeks, a senior DOJ official told NBC News, confirming a Wall Street Journal report. Senior Justice Department and FBI officials held many meetings on how to proceed with the probe before Garland approved moving ahead with a search warrant, the official added.

In a statement last week announcing he was moving to unseal the search warrant and the property receipt in the case, Garland suggested he’d signed off on the search warrant out of necessity. “Where possible, it is standard practice to seek less intrusive means as an alternative to a search and to narrowly scope any search that is undertaken,” he said.


Justice Department lawyers said in a court filing Monday they're open to releasing more documents about the probe, but not the affidavit, which Trump and his lawyers said they have not seen. The filing said its premature release could “cause significant and irreparable damage to this ongoing criminal investigation.”

“If disclosed, the affidavit would serve as a roadmap to the government’s ongoing investigation, providing specific details about its direction and likely course, in a manner that is highly likely to compromise future investigative steps,” they wrote.

It could also interfere with witnesses they’ve already interviewed, and witnesses they could interview in the near future, the filing said.

The “information about witnesses is particularly sensitive given the high-profile nature of this matter and the risk that the revelation of witness identities would impact their willingness to cooperate with the investigation. Disclosure of the government’s affidavit at this stage would also likely chill future cooperation by witnesses whose assistance may be sought as this investigation progresses, as well as in other high-profile investigations,” the filing said.

The government also said the probe involves national security issues, adding, “The fact that this investigation implicates highly classified materials further underscores the need to protect the integrity of the investigation and exacerbates the potential for harm if information is disclosed to the public prematurely or improperly.”

The filing noted that the Department of Justice consented to having the search warrant and property receipt unsealed after Trump publicly disclosed the Mar-a-Lago search, and that Trump was already in possession of both documents.

highlights

• Myths & Misunderstandings Relating to Mar-a-Lago Documents Investigation

In the days since former President Donald Trump announced on his social media platform that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had executed a search warrant at his home and business at Mar-a-Lago, there has been much discussion as to what authorities Trump has or had as a former president and what laws or regulations he may have violated by possessing documents with classification markings outside of proper controls. This has led to the repeating of many myths and misunderstandings, often by the former president himself, as to presidential authority relating to classified information.

Myth #1: As former president Nixon once said, “When the president does it that means that it is not illegal.”

True that Nixon said it, but the idea is false.

Myth #2: As long as information has been declassified by competent authority or is otherwise unclassified, former government officials (to include a former president) are free to possess and/or disclose the information at will.

False. Yada, yada, yada…..

Known as Controlled Unclassified Information, examples include information relating to federal taxpayers, witness protection, critical infrastructure protection and nuclear security.

Yada, yada…….

Moreover, the unauthorized possession of certain controlled unclassified information such as Naval Nuclear Propulsion Information could be subject to prosecution under, among other statutes, 18 USC 793 of the Espionage Act, which does not mention classified information but rather applies to closely held national defense information the disclosure of which, if publicly known, could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation.

Myth #3: The President possesses the “absolute authority” to declassify information at will.

Partly true, partly false.

Myth #4: Trump claims that while president he had a “standing order that documents removed from the Oval Office and taken to the residence were deemed to be declassified the moment he removed them.”

Absurd.

Myth #5: Former presidents control the disposition of their White House records.

False.

Starting with the administration of President Ford, and in reaction to the Watergate scandal of the Nixon administration, in addition to the Federal Records Act, records of each presidential administration are controlled by the Presidential Records Act (PRA), depending upon which element of the White House is involved. In this Act, Congress made it clear that the American people, not the former president, owns the records and assigns responsibility to the incumbent president for the custody and management of his presidential records.

• A familiar problem: Trump struggles to hire a legal defense team

By any fair measure, Donald Trump is confronting a serious legal problem. The former president allegedly took highly classified national security secrets to his glorified country club — and refused to give them back. It ultimately led FBI agents to arrive at his door, as part of an apparent criminal investigation.

Common sense suggests this is precisely the time the Republican would use his resources to hire the best legal defense team money can buy, in preparation for a possible felony indictment. There is, however, an inescapable problem: Top-shelf attorneys don’t want to work for him. The Washington Post reported:

Former president Donald Trump and close aides have spent the eight days since the FBI searched his Florida home rushing to assemble a team of respected defense lawyers. But the answer they keep hearing is “no.” The struggle to find expert legal advice puts Trump in a bind as he faces potential criminal exposure from a records dispute with the National Archives that escalated into a federal investigation into possible violations of the Espionage Act and other statutes.

The article quoted one prominent Republican lawyer saying, simply, “Everyone is saying no.”

The result is an almost comical dynamic: As the Post summarized, a former American president is currently represented by a legal defense team that includes a Florida insurance lawyer who’s never had a federal case, a past general counsel for a parking-garage company, and a former host from a propagandistic cable outlet.

It is, to be sure, embarrassing. But it’s also surprisingly familiar.

Much more in the article

Who can blame them? He doesn't pay his bills, refuses to listen to advice and will throw them under a bus at a drop of a hat. There is literally no upside for any lawyer to take his case(s). Let him have a legal aid student!

^You are right. He has a bad history.

_________

Rudy Giuliani, a target in Atlanta probe into Trump 2020 election subversion scheme, appears before grand jury

Rudy Giuliani, who was told by Atlanta prosecutors that he is a target in their probe of former President Donald Trump's 2020 election subversion schemes in Georgia, appeared behind closed doors for grand jury testimony in the investigation Wednesday.

Giuliani declined to comment to CNN on his way into the Superior Court of Fulton County just before 8:30 a.m. ET. He wrapped up his appearance before an Atlanta-area grand jury after roughly six hours, his car flanked by police escorts as he departed without speaking to reporters.

Bob Costello, an attorney for Giuliani, told CNN he would not provide any details about what Giuliani was asked and how he responded.

"The grand jury is secret, and we're going to keep it that way," Costello told CNN.

The indication that he is a target of Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis' probe marked an escalation of the investigation and raises questions about Trump's criminal exposure in the probe. Willis' office has also informed 16 Trump-supporting operatives who were presented fraudulently as presidential electors in 2020 that they are targets of her investigation, but the focus on Giuliani brings the investigation into Trump's inner circle.


_______________

Extra.

But when a reporter asked Giuliani if he was concerned that Trump could “throw him under a bus,” Giuliani replied cryptically. “I’m not, but I do have very, very good insurance, so if he does, all my hospital bills will be paid,” Giuliani quipped.

____________

In other news.........

Trump Org CFO Allen Weisselberg WILL testify against Donald's company where he's worked for 42 years as part of plea deal that will see him serve just 100 days in jail for 15 felony offences

Several sources close to the investigation said they expected the Trump Organization to come out firing. ‘They are fully ramped up for trial and expect to fight this all the way through,’ said one, who confirmed that Weisselberg had agreed to plead guilty to 15 felony charges and could see his potential jail time cut to 100 days.

• Trump legal adviser ordered to testify in Ga. election probe

A judge in Colorado on Tuesday ordered a legal adviser for former President Donald Trump’s campaign to travel to Georgia to testify before a special grand jury that’s looking into whether Trump and others illegally tried to influence the 2020 election in Georgia.

Judge Gregory Lammons in Fort Collins, Colorado, made the decision after holding a hearing on a request from Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis to compel testimony from attorney Jenna Ellis. Prosecutors are interested in Ellis’s role in helping to coordinate and plan legislative hearings in Georgia and others states where false allegations of election fraud were pushed, according to testimony in court.

Fulton County prosecutors have purchased plane tickets and made a hotel reservation in preparation for Ellis to testify on Aug. 25.

The investigation, prompted by a January 2021 phone call between Trump and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, began early last year. During that call, Trump suggested Raffensperger could “find” the votes to overturn his narrow election loss in the state. It has become clear since the special grand jury was seated in May that the focus of the investigation extends well beyond that call.

Willis last month filed petitions with the judge overseeing the special grand jury seeking to compel testimony from seven Trump associates and advisers, including Ellis, U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and former New York mayor and Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani. Because they don’t live in Georgia, she had to use a process that involves getting a judge in the state where they’re located to order them to appear before the special grand jury in Atlanta.

• Trump Appeals Dismissal of Lawsuit Against Letitia James

Trump Appellate Brief Argues New York Attorney General’s Investigation into Trump Org Finances Is ‘Unconstitutional in its Entirety’

An attorney for former President Donald Trump filed a motion in federal appellate court this week seeking to put the kibosh on New York State’s multi-year investigation into allegedly “fraudulent or misleading” asset valuations for Trump Organization properties.

The investigation by New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) has not resulted in an actual case being filed so far, but rather, a fairly limited discovery-focused process that has largely dealt with enforcing subpoenas in order to gather information. Conversely, however, James’ work has been put to use in a separate, but related, criminal investigation into Trump Organization tax practices being conducted by the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office.

In the Tuesday filing with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, attorney Alina Habba argues the AG’s investigation is both “harassing and overreaching.” The 45-page brief asks the court to step in so as to protect the 45th president’s rights and “to curtail this improperly motivated and unconstitutional abuse of process.”

James launched her investigation into Trump Organization asset valuation practices over three years ago. The ongoing probe, she says, was initiated after Trump’s longtime personal lawyer and fixer, and former friend, Michael Cohen, testified before Congress that the then-president’s namesake family business was “cooking the books.” The company has consistently denied those claims.

In December 2021, Habba filed a motion in federal district court seeking to have the investigation dismissed on the basis that James was “guided solely by political animus and a desire to harass, intimidate, and retaliate against a private citizen who she views as a political opponent.” Eventually, U.S. District Judge Brenda K. Sannes disagreed, writing that even though James’ “public statements reflect personal and/or political animus toward” Trump, that”is not, in and of itself, sufficient” to show that the investigation was biased.

Trump’s lawsuit was dismissed in May of this year.

Vowing to appeal at the time, on the basis of an exception to a general legal doctrine that precludes federal courts from intervening in state court proceedings, Habba has now made good on that promise.

The Trump brief takes issue with the district court’s ruling for focusing “solely on the manner in which the investigation has been conducted,” rather than looking at “the subjective bad faith of the prosecuting authority.” The brief cites precedent to argue an inquiry into such alleged bad faith is “the gravamen of the exception” to the doctrine that aims to keep federal courts out of state courts’ business.

The underlying action is based on allegations the Trump Organization inflated the value of certain business assets in order to obtain more favorable loan terms while also fraudulently deflating the value of other assets in order to secure lower property tax rates.

In February of this year, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron declined to quash civil subpoenas and depositions for members of the Trump family, writing in an 8-page ruling that it “would have been a blatant dereliction of duty (and would have broken an oft repeated campaign promise)” for the attorney general not to investigate those fraud allegations that came via Cohen’s February 2019 congressional testimony. Two months later, a higher state court affirmed Engoron’s ruling.

In dismissing Trump’s federal lawsuit earlier this year, Judge Sannes found that the New York State court decisions to uphold the subpoenas invoked the doctrine of res judicata, essentially meaning that the court system had already dealt with the issue in full and the issue was therefore settled as a matter of law.

Habba’s filing on behalf of Trump argues against that notion, saying that the district court’s order elided several key points.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documen...1622-brief.pdf

One just hopes the orange afterbirth doesn't croak before he gets sent to jail. Ah well, even if he does, his 'kids' will be next.

Even in Jail he and his supporters will scream conspiracy.

True, but fewer people will see or hear him . . . bonus. Double bonus if he dies in jail.

It would be nice to see the DOJ charge trump with three different crimes.

The Thursday document release..........

The cover sheet to the warrant application indicates that the search was connected to a possible violation of three statutes: 18 U.S.C. § 793 (the willful retention of national defense information), 18 U.S.C. § 2071 (the concealment or removal of government records), and 18 U.S.C. § 1519 (the obstruction of a federal investigation). Law&Crime explained how those statutes operate in a previous report.

6 pages: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documen...to-seal-57.pdf

Susanne Craig, investigative reporter for the New York Times, talks with Alex Wagner about Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg's guilty plea in the tax fraud case brought by the Manhattan district attorney's office, and what it means for potential future prosecutions of other Trump Organization executives.

• White House officials privately express concern classified information taken to Mar-a-Lago could put intelligence community at risk

White House officials have privately expressed deep concern over the tranche of classified material taken to former President Donald Trump's home in Florida, including some documents that are only meant to be viewed only in secure government facilities, CNN has learned.

As more information has emerged in the days since FBI agents combed the former President's private residence, current administration officials have become increasingly concerned about what Trump took and whether that information -- some located in a basement-level storage facility at Mar-a-Lago -- could potentially put the sources and methods of the US intelligence community at risk.

"There is a deep concern," one senior administration official told CNN.

Intelligence officials have also expressed concern about what Trump might have taken, according to a source with direct knowledge of the matter. Intelligence community representatives have had discussions with the Justice Department, congressional intelligence committees, and the National Archives in recent months about potentially missing sensitive documents, the source said.

White House officials have steadfastly maintained near-silence on the matter, insisting it is for the Justice Department to comment on the ongoing investigation. President Joe Biden hasn't been briefed on the criminal probe, officials say, and information about it has arrived at the West Wing via media reports.

Asked Wednesday whether Biden needs to be briefed on the national security implications, White House chief of staff Ron Klain insisted the President would maintain his distance.

"One reason why Joe Biden got elected President is he promised that he would stay out of meddling like his predecessor did in investigations being conducted by the Justice Department, that he would not politically interfere in the Justice Department enforcing our laws," he told CNN's Don Lemon.


Without knowing precisely what is in the material taken from Mar-a-Lago, officials have raised concerns internally about whether it could hamper the nation's spy agencies by putting at risk the ways officials gather intelligence. There have also been discussions about the potential diplomatic fallout, including whether the information found at Mar-a-Lago may cause tensions with allies.

The Justice Department removed 11 sets of classified documents from Trump's home, according to documents unsealed by a judge last week. The inventory shows that some of the materials recovered were marked as "top secret/SCI," which is one of the highest levels of classification. The matter that was retrieved by the FBI included material about French President Emmanuel Macron, which has also raised concerns inside the White House.

The French Embassy in Washington declined to say whether they'd had discussions with the White House about the material. The White House also declined to comment on internal concerns about the classified information taken to Mar-a-Lago.

Biden as president has previously raised concern about Trump's handling of sensitive information. He took the unprecedented step early in his term of cutting off Trump's access to intelligence briefings, a courtesy previously extended to all former presidents.

"What value is giving him an intelligence briefing?" Biden said in an interview with CBS News in February 2021. "What impact does he have at all, other than the fact he might slip and say something?"

Biden aides have previously questioned whether Trump could reveal classified or sensitive information he learned during his days as president in speeches or interviews, which are often delivered off-the-cuff.

Trump hints at legal action in response to Mar-a-Lago search

Former President Trump on Friday hinted at taking legal action in response to the FBI search of his Mar-a-Lago property last week.

Trump said in a post on his social media platform Truth Social that a “major motion” related to the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution will soon be filed related to the search. He claimed his rights have been violated at a level “rarely seen” before.

The Fourth Amendment protects people against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Trump and his allies have lambasted the search and accused DOJ officials of acting on political motivation against Trump, who is considering a third run for the presidency in 2024.

Baldy orange cunto and his lawsuits...

How many did he lose after the election?

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Baldy orange cunto and his lawsuits...

How many has he lost after losing the election and leaving office?

Fixed that for ya