This Is What’s Going to Happen If Candidate Trump Gets Indicted

[homersapien 11,357]

Good prediction on our political future with Trump.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/11/16/donald-trump-2024-campaign-legal-criminal-indictment-00067509

An indicted former president running again for the White House has never happened. But it’s not impossible to predict how it will all shake out.

Donald Trump announced his third run for president Tuesday night in a move that was widely perceived as a gambit to stave off a federal criminal indictment. It won’t work. Trump is likely to be indicted by the Department of Justice, making him the first former president to campaign for the White House while facing charges. The historic nature of this scenario seems fitting for a candidate who has defied every norm of American politics during his seven-year career in public life. While unprecedented, there are certain realities of federal prosecutions that offer a useful roadmap for how the next two years will likely play out in the courts.

1. Will Trump’s announcement affect the Justice Department’s decision to indict him?

Not really. Donald Trump was the immediate past president and one of the most well-known and controversial politicians in the United States. He has been widely regarded as the de facto leader of the Republican Party and a likely nominee. DOJ would not have opened a criminal investigation into Trump if they weren’t willing to consider indicting him.

In other words, the fallout of a potential indictment of Trump was already baked in to DOJ’s decision making. Even if Trump hadn’t announced, they would have faced the same criticism, and Trump would have likely argued that he was indicted to deter him from announcing his candidacy in the future.

2. When would the DOJ issue an indictment?

I wouldn’t be surprised if the Justice Department waited until after the Georgia Senate runoff on Dec. 6 to make any overt steps — an indictment, execution of another search warrant or an arrest. Once that political event has passed, charges could come before or after the holidays.

3. But there’s a lot of speculation that Garland will appoint a special counsel. Is that likely?

Attorney General Merrick Garland was reportedly considering appointing a special counsel if Trump announced a run for president. Appointment of a special counsel essentially creates an ad hoc U.S. Attorney’s Office that has the power to investigate and prosecute specified matters. Garland could still overrule the special counsel, but he could not do so without informing Congress.

A special counsel (which I have recommended in other circumstances) is a good idea because the appointment of a career prosecutor who has no connection to President Joe Biden or his appointees would offer some measure of independence, particularly if Garland stated in advance that he would follow the Special Counsel’s recommendation.

4. Wouldn’t that slow things down?

The potential appointment of a special counsel has raised concerns that it would take years to conclude. This fear could be due to the lengthy investigation conducted by former special counsel Robert Mueller, which lasted nearly two years.

But this case would be different because the DOJ is already investigating Trump and the same FBI agents could work with the special counsel’s office. Some of the career prosecutors at DOJ could be hired and work for the new special counsel. The appointment of a special counsel would slow things down by weeks, not months, if at all. The prosecution of Trump would be more like Mueller’s prosecution of one-time Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, who was indicted within about five months of Mueller’s appointment because much of the investigative work had already been done.

5. What will Trump likely be indicted for?

Ever since Trump refused to return all the classified material he held at Mar-a-Lago, even after the Justice Department served him with a grand jury subpoena and demanded its return, charges relating to his willful retention of classified material have been likely. Obstruction of justice is also a possibility, depending on the evidence developed by prosecutors.

As I’ve written before, Trump’s determination to keep highly classified documents at his residence in South Florida even after the federal government told him they were classified and demanded their return is much more like the straightforward crimes I prosecuted as a junior federal prosecutor — bank robbery and narcotics trafficking — than the complex white-collar crimes I later spent years investigating and prosecuting.

White-collar crimes like fraud or obstruction usually turn on the defendant’s intent. There is usually no question that the defendant filed his tax returns. But did he do so with the intent to defraud the IRS? But not all crimes are that complicated. In a narcotics case, if you possess heroin or cocaine, you’re guilty. You can argue that you didn’t really know it was narcotics — maybe you thought it was powdered sugar — but that is rarely a viable defense.

By keeping Top Secret documents even after he received a grand jury subpoena and a personal visit from the DOJ demanding their return, Trump served up a very easy case to the DOJ.

6. What about charges stemming from the Jan. 6 attack?

While it’s possible that the DOJ could eventually develop sufficient evidence to charge Trump with incitement or making a false statement to the federal government or a scheme to defraud the United States in connection with the fake elector scheme, those crimes turn on Trump’s intent or state of mind and are thus more difficult to prove.

For that reason, I expect DOJ to focus on the crimes involving Trump’s retention of classified material and other governmental records. It’s possible that DOJ will add obstruction charges related to those documents because they are factually intertwined with the other charges and highlight evidence that suggests that Trump had a consciousness of guilt that could convince jurors to convict on the other counts.

7. Are others in Trump’s orbit likely to face criminal charges?

Possibly. Some of his associates may have helped him hide documents or obstruct justice, which could lead DOJ to include them in the indictment. There are also separate investigations of other Trump associates such as Jeffrey Clark. Clark could be indicted regardless of what the DOJ does with Trump.

8. If Trump is indicted, would the trial happen before the November 2024 election?

After an indictment, the process would slow down.

Typically defense counsel get months to review evidence, and in a case involving so many classified documents, that could be a slow process. The defense will file motions, which the judge could take months to consider. Trial would likely be 12 to 24 months away, in other words a range that would cover the entirety of the election year.

Although Trump has a right to a speedy trial — a trial in 70 days or less from indictment — most criminal defendants waive that right and drag out the process. When I was a federal prosecutor, some defendants created enough delay to drag the process out for years before trial. Given the circumstances, however, I think most judges would likely ensure that a trial was scheduled well before the end of Biden’s term to reduce the impact that a criminal trial would have on the 2024 election.

9. Can Trump still run for president if he’s convicted? Can he serve as president if he wins the election while in prison?

Trump would not be sentenced until months after his conviction and could potentially remain out of prison pending appeal. But a conviction or even imprisonment would not bar Trump from running for president. The Constitution sets the requirements for presidential candidates, and a clean criminal history is not one of them.

Some have wondered if a convicted but still unsentenced Trump could be inaugurated and assume control of the Oval Office. While presumably that could occur, the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment on a sitting president is almost too bizarre to even contemplate and would certainly raise constitutional issues that the Supreme Court would ultimately resolve.

 

 

Edited November 20, 2022 by homersapien

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

5 hours ago, homersapien said:

Good prediction on our political future with Trump.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/11/16/donald-trump-2024-campaign-legal-criminal-indictment-00067509

An indicted former president running again for the White House has never happened. But it’s not impossible to predict how it will all shake out.

Donald Trump announced his third run for president Tuesday night in a move that was widely perceived as a gambit to stave off a federal criminal indictment. It won’t work. Trump is likely to be indicted by the Department of Justice, making him the first former president to campaign for the White House while facing charges. The historic nature of this scenario seems fitting for a candidate who has defied every norm of American politics during his seven-year career in public life. While unprecedented, there are certain realities of federal prosecutions that offer a useful roadmap for how the next two years will likely play out in the courts.

1. Will Trump’s announcement affect the Justice Department’s decision to indict him?

Not really. Donald Trump was the immediate past president and one of the most well-known and controversial politicians in the United States. He has been widely regarded as the de facto leader of the Republican Party and a likely nominee. DOJ would not have opened a criminal investigation into Trump if they weren’t willing to consider indicting him.

In other words, the fallout of a potential indictment of Trump was already baked in to DOJ’s decisionmaking. Even if Trump hadn’t announced, they would have faced the same criticism, and Trump would have likely argued that he was indicted to deter him from announcing his candidacy in the future.

2. When would the DOJ issue an indictment?

I wouldn’t be surprised if the Justice Department waited until after the Georgia Senate runoff on Dec. 6 to make any overt steps — an indictment, execution of another search warrant or an arrest. Once that political event has passed, charges could come before or after the holidays.

3. But there’s a lot of speculation that Garland will appoint a special counsel. Is that likely?

Attorney General Merrick Garland was reportedly considering appointing a special counsel if Trump announced a run for president. Appointment of a special counsel essentially creates an ad hoc U.S. Attorney’s Office that has the power to investigate and prosecute specified matters. Garland could still overrule the special counsel, but he could not do so without informing Congress.

A special counsel (which I have recommended in other circumstances) is a good idea because the appointment of a career prosecutor who has no connection to President Joe Biden or his appointees would offer some measure of independence, particularly if Garland stated in advance that he would follow the Special Counsel’s recommendation.

4. Wouldn’t that slow things down?

The potential appointment of a special counsel has raised concerns that it would take years to conclude. This fear could be due to the lengthy investigation conducted by former special counsel Robert Mueller, which lasted nearly two years.

But this case would be different because the DOJ is already investigating Trump and the same FBI agents could work with the special counsel’s office. Some of the career prosecutors at DOJ could be hired and work for the new special counsel. The appointment of a special counsel would slow things down by weeks, not months, if at all. The prosecution of Trump would be more like Mueller’s prosecution of one-time Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, who was indicted within about five months of Mueller’s appointment because much of the investigative work had already been done.

5. What will Trump likely be indicted for?

Ever since Trump refused to return all the classified material he held at Mar-a-Lago, even after the Justice Department served him with a grand jury subpoena and demanded its return, charges relating to his willful retention of classified material have been likely. Obstruction of justice is also a possibility, depending on the evidence developed by prosecutors.

As I’ve written before, Trump’s determination to keep highly classified documents at his residence in South Florida even after the federal government told him they were classified and demanded their return is much more like the straightforward crimes I prosecuted as a junior federal prosecutor — bank robbery and narcotics trafficking — than the complex white-collar crimes I later spent years investigating and prosecuting.

White-collar crimes like fraud or obstruction usually turn on the defendant’s intent. There is usually no question that the defendant filed his tax returns. But did he do so with the intent to defraud the IRS? But not all crimes are that complicated. In a narcotics case, if you possess heroin or cocaine, you’re guilty. You can argue that you didn’t really know it was narcotics — maybe you thought it was powdered sugar — but that is rarely a viable defense.

By keeping Top Secret documents even after he received a grand jury subpoena and a personal visit from the DOJ demanding their return, Trump served up a very easy case to the DOJ.

6. What about charges stemming from the Jan. 6 attack?

While it’s possible that the DOJ could eventually develop sufficient evidence to charge Trump with incitement or making a false statement to the federal government or a scheme to defraud the United States in connection with the fake elector scheme, those crimes turn on Trump’s intent or state of mind and are thus more difficult to prove.

For that reason, I expect DOJ to focus on the crimes involving Trump’s retention of classified material and other governmental records. It’s possible that DOJ will add obstruction charges related to those documents because they are factually intertwined with the other charges and highlight evidence that suggests that Trump had a consciousness of guilt that could convince jurors to convict on the other counts.

7. Are others in Trump’s orbit likely to face criminal charges?

Possibly. Some of his associates may have helped him hide documents or obstruct justice, which could lead DOJ to include them in the indictment. There are also separate investigations of other Trump associates such as Jeffrey Clark. Clark could be indicted regardless of what the DOJ does with Trump.

8. If Trump is indicted, would the trial happen before the November 2024 election?

After an indictment, the process would slow down.

Typically defense counsel get months to review evidence, and in a case involving so many classified documents, that could be a slow process. The defense will file motions, which the judge could take months to consider. Trial would likely be 12 to 24 months away, in other words a range that would cover the entirety of the election year.

Although Trump has a right to a speedy trial — a trial in 70 days or less from indictment — most criminal defendants waive that right and drag out the process. When I was a federal prosecutor, some defendants created enough delay to drag the process out for years before trial. Given the circumstances, however, I think most judges would likely ensure that a trial was scheduled well before the end of Biden’s term to reduce the impact that a criminal trial would have on the 2024 election.

9. Can Trump still run for president if he’s convicted? Can he serve as president if he wins the election while in prison?

Trump would not be sentenced until months after his conviction and could potentially remain out of prison pending appeal. But a conviction or even imprisonment would not bar Trump from running for president. The Constitution sets the requirements for presidential candidates, and a clean criminal history is not one of them.

Some have wondered if a convicted but still unsentenced Trump could be inaugurated and assume control of the Oval Office. While presumably that could occur, the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment on a sitting president is almost too bizarre to even contemplate and would certainly raise constitutional issues that the Supreme Court would ultimately resolve.

 

 

Do you think Trump should be indicted? 

[homersapien 11,357]

40 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Do you think Trump should be indicted? 

You're the lawyer. If the evidence indicates he has committed a crime, then why shouldn't he?

 

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

You're the lawyer. If the evidence indicates he has committed a crime, then why shouldn't he?

 

 

There are plenty of stupid lawyers, though. I want to know what you think. 

[homersapien 11,357]

6 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

There are plenty of stupid lawyers, though. I want to know what you think. 

Yes, if he committed a crime, I think he should be indicted just like anyone else.

The law should apply to everyone equally. That's an important principle of our democracy.

Don't you agree?

Edited November 18, 2022 by homersapien

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

Just now, homersapien said:

Yes, if he committed a crime, I think he should be indicted just like anyone else.

The law should apply to everyone equally. That's an important principle of our democracy.

Don't you agree?

I agree the law should apply to everyone equally, yes. Therefore, lets overturn New York Times Co. v. Sullivan!!!!!!!!

[GoAU 1,599]

I think this all about WHAT was taken.  If it’s truly sensitive material, prosecute him - he should know better.  If it’s ancillary crap and this is purely a political hit job, roll the Hillary route.  It’s not that hard.  
 

Most conservatives I know feel the same way - laws are laws.  The frustration (for both sides) comes when they aren’t equally enforced.  

[homersapien 11,357]

On 11/18/2022 at 11:38 AM, homersapien said:

 

Some have wondered if a convicted but still unsentenced Trump could be inaugurated and assume control of the Oval Office. While presumably that could occur, the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment on a sitting president is almost too bizarre to even contemplate and would certainly raise constitutional issues that the Supreme Court would ultimately resolve.

Trump, the gift that keeps on giving.

[AURex 1,992]

On 11/19/2022 at 8:55 PM, GoAU said:

I think this all about WHAT was taken.  If it’s truly sensitive material, prosecute him - he should know better.  If it’s ancillary crap and this is purely a political hit job, roll the Hillary route.  It’s not that hard.  
 

In the end, it has nothing to do with the sensitivity of the documents. All f those documents (with the exception of a handful) belong to the federal government. They are the property of the federal government. All of them, except for maybe a very few. He had no right to export and hoard them at an insecure site like his resort. Although it becomes much more flagrant and dangerous if some were highly classified, he should not have had ANY of them at Mar-a-Lago.

And there is concern that he has hoarded even more at other locations not yet searched, like his golf club.

The only question is: Will the DOJ have the GUTS to indict Trump for his criminal activity in this case? Or, is the DOJ so frightened of Trump and his toe-sucking, prostrating minions that they will take a pass? In other words, is Garland a lion or a p*ssy?

 

 

Edited November 23, 2022 by AURex

[GoAU 1,599]

I can get behind this, assuming the precedent is evenly set and applied.  I also assume that you also feel that Hillary should be fully prosecuted as well, right?   After all, she clearly broke the law as well, Comey even said so, yet refused to prosecute her - stated that it wasn’t that big of an issue.  
 

The only reason I took the stance that I did was that practically every piece of paper the the President deals with is classified.   If it is non-sensitive information such as an old itinerary, notes that are personal in nature that have no intelligence value, etc I want to be sure we are following the intent of the law and not using the law the execute a political hit job.  Surely you can also see that the timing of the warrant (mid term elections) and the manner in which it was carried out seems a little suspicious?   
 

That being said, if what he took truly should be considered classified, and he didn’t (legally & morally) de-classify it than I agree he should be prosecuted.  I obviously don’t think classified documents should be released to the public, but I feel the public deserves to know what type of documents are in question here.