Post New

Well, that Bret Baier interview of Donald Trump sure was a hoot. Trump continued to dig his stolen documents hole deeper, admitting that he obstructed justice and providing yet more evidence for the special counsel to bury him under. While there were many absurd moments throughout the interview -- watch the interview and you'll instantly understand why Trump will never, ever testify under oath in a court of law -- one that made even Bret Baier laugh was when Trump bragged about pardoning Alice Marie Johnson.

Johnson was serving life in prison dating back to 1996 on charges stemming from cocaine distribution and money laundering. The Memphis operation involved over a dozen individuals. The indictment, which named 16 defendants, described her as a leader in a multi-million dollar cocaine ring, and detailed dozens of drug transactions and deliveries. Evidence presented at trial showed that the Memphis operation was connected to Colombian drug dealers based in Texas.

Lying, Trump told Baier that Johnson was involved mostly in trafficking marijuana. Trump used Johnson in a campaign ad and was his guest at his state of the union. But...

Trump told Baier that he believed the country had to enact stronger punishments against drug dealers to bring down crime, including the death penalty. In defending his own record on crime, which has come under scrutiny in the 2024 primary, Trump said his pardon powers were focused largely on nonviolent offenders.

Baier pointed out to Trump that under his current policy -- calling for the execution of drug dealers -- Johnson would be executed rather than pardoned.

BAIER: "But she'd be killed under your plan."

TRUMP: "Huh?"

BAIER: "As a drug dealer."

TRUMP: "No, no, no. Oh, under that? Ahhhhhhhhh, it would depend on the severity."

BAIER: "She's technically a former drug dealer. She had a multi-million dollar drug ring..."

TRUMP: "Any drug dealer -- look."

BAIER: "So even Alice Johnson in that ad?"

TRUMP: "She can't do it. Okay? By the way, if that was there, no she wouldn't be killed, it would start as of now so you wouldn't go to the past."

BAIER: (exasperated laughing) "No, I know, but your policy...

TRUMP: "No, no, no, yeah... starting now."


BTW, Obama was urged by some to pardon Johnson but declined. Johnson became a causes célèbres when Kim Kardashian argued for her pardon. Knowing that Obama had declined to pardon Johnson possibly factored into Trump's do-the-opposite-of-what-Obama-did decision-making.


https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4059506-trum...

BTW, Obama was urged by some to pardon Johnson but declined. Johnson became a causes célèbres when Kim Kardashian argued for her pardon. Knowing that Obama had declined to pardon Johnson possibly factored into Trump's do-the-opposite-of-what-Obama-did decision-making.


Trump is such a tool. And if you support him you're a fool. Period.

Trump continued to dig his stolen documents hole deeper, admitting that he obstructed justice and providing yet more evidence for the special counsel to bury him under.

It was....just jarring to watch him talk about the one element of the case that would (in normal circumstances) be the hardest thing for prosecutors to establish: his actual state of mind when committing the acts.

There's a clearly correct response to a reporter asking you why you didn't return the documents: "No comment." Giving public statements while under indictment is a bad idea.

There's a second-best response to a reporter asking you why you didn't return the documents: "I thought we did return all the responsive documents. That's what I told my lawyers to do!" That's the answer that gets you out of jail, if you can keep the government from proving otherwise.

Instead, Trump said that he didn't want to send the boxes back because they contained personal items (like golf shirts and shoes), and he just hadn't gotten around to taking those things out (more than a year after leaving office). Which is certainly causing his defense counsel to tear out their hair. Now the feds have Trump on video, describing his state of mind back when the decisions were made to refrain from returning the boxes, saying that he was aware of the contents of the boxes and that the decision not to return them was a deliberate, knowledgeable choice. He allowed himself to be recorded saying he knew that there were boxes with material that needed to be returned and that he decided that before they could be "sent over" he had to "take all my things out."

Rarely do prosecutors get given such a valuable gift. In a case that will turn almost entirely on the President's knowledge and state of mind during the relevant time frames, he admitted to nearly everything that the prosecutors would have to otherwise demonstrate in order to prove the "willfully" element of the crime.

"Now the feds have Trump on video, describing his state of mind back when the decisions were made to refrain from returning the boxes, saying that he was aware of the contents of the boxes and that the decision not to return them was a deliberate, knowledgeable choice. He allowed himself to be recorded saying he knew that there were boxes with material that needed to be returned and that he decided that before they could be "sent over" he had to "take all my things out."
",

And yet, none of that matters - it's tRump. He'll never do time or even be found unequivocally guilty. That's just how things are in America. If you're big, you're fine.

There's a clearly correct response to a reporter asking you why you didn't return the documents: "No comment." Giving public statements while under indictment is a bad idea.

The old adage: better to remain silent and be thought the fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.

He's his own worst enemy. Of course, he has a history of securing really crappy counsel, from what I understand. Like Alex Jones did when they sent over ALL his text messages to the plaintiffs, and then didn't recall them when informed of this. The plaintiffs excoriated him with those texts.

And yet, none of that matters - it's tRump. He'll never do time or even be found unequivocally guilty. That's just how things are in America. If you're big, you're fine.

Well, if you're big, you'll certainly have a large defense litigation budget and access to some level of quality private defense attorneys. That alone puts you well ahead of most everyone else who gets charged with a crime.

There's a non-trivial likelihood that Trump might be convicted on these charges, if it goes to trial. They are well-supported in the indictment, and (again) he basically knee-capped his defense with the Baier interview. If the defense can win on the attorney/client crime-fraud exception matter, he might have a better shot, though.

If a non-Trump Republican is elected President, he'll certainly be pardoned - and if it's before the trial, that obviously precludes a finding of guilt. If Trump is re-elected President, he might be vain enough to face trial (he won't want to pardon himself, because only guilty people can be pardoned). But if convicted, he'd certainly try to pardon himself - and it would be a long fight before that got resolved.

Regardless, I don't think Trump gets sentenced to prison. I don't think the Bureau of Prisons is set up to handle an incarcerated former President, and there's no real need to do it. I think he would instead be sentenced to some form of house arrest, either in his own home or on a military or other secure installation where he can be confined to a specific area but still protected by Secret Service.

Military? How 'bout Gitmo. He'll be well-protected there.

Military? How 'bout Gitmo. He'll be well-protected there.

Not as well-protected as being on a domestic base. If you gave him a residence on Fort Liberty and confined him there, it would impose a sanction without having to tie the Bureau of Prisons up in knots. I think that's far more likely than him being sentenced to a BoP facility, if he were to actually be convicted and sentenced and begin a sentence.

Even that's pretty unlikely, because Trump probably has two election chances to avoid serving a sentence, even if he's convicted. The 2024 election will certainly happen before he could even begin serving a sentence - if a Republican wins, he'll certainly be pardoned. But I also suspect that even if he were convicted, he will be granted post-trial bail pending the disposition of his appeal (he'd certainly appeal). He'd meet all the technical requirements for delaying the beginning of his sentence. And it's not at all unreasonable that it could take four years for those appeals to wend their way up and down the courts. Enough time for 2028 to roll around, and offer anew a chance for a GOP President to pardon him.

Rarely do prosecutors get given such a valuable gift. In a case that will turn almost entirely on the President's knowledge and state of mind during the relevant time frames, he admitted to nearly everything that the prosecutors would have to otherwise demonstrate in order to prove the "willfully" element of the crime.

Oh, that very stable genius. LOL

Way too much ego and not enough real intelligence.

Oh, that very stable genius. LOL

Way too much ego and not enough real intelligence.

Oh, Trump's got intelligence. He's not a dumb person by any stretch. And this might not have been the wrong choice.

Unlike nearly every other criminal defendant, Trump's got two different paths to beat the rap on this. The first is the one every defendant has - try to get acquitted at trial. But the second is rare indeed - if Trump gets elected President, he's not going to be convicted on these charges.

There's probably no practical way that he can get run for President without putting himself in situations where people will ask him about the documents. He probably hurts his chances - a lot - if he seems evasive or weak about keeping them. His entire political persona is based on aggression and counterpunching. He's always a "I never did anything wrong!" kind of person, not a "no comment" type of guy. He has to provide a story on the boxes, one that makes him seem in charge and important, to maximize his campaign chances.

Going all-in on the campaign means talking about the boxes in a way that makes your defense counsel cringe. Having your best case in court, on the other hand, means not talking about them - and weakening your campaign.

Given the odds, I think Trump's better chances are to win the election. He's got a much better chance in that arena - maybe 50/50? - than he did in court. Blowing up his court defense to maximize his chance of winning the Presidency isn't necessarily the wrong move.

I think Trump's better chances are to win the election. He's got a much better chance in that arena - maybe 50/50?

What a gawdawful thought. How I hope you are wrong.

And, yes, he may have a kind of calculating smarts, but listen to him speak; listen to his vocabulary. He sounds downright stupid sometimes and I don't think it is for appeal to his base.

It was....just jarring to watch him talk about the one element of the case that would (in normal circumstances) be the hardest thing for prosecutors to establish: his actual state of mind when committing the acts.

Yes. Up until this point I had been giving Trump points on savily navigating the waters, that he had been schooled in not incriminating himself and understood it well. That he would attend to being coached for an interview, and that he had been coached enough it should take very little to prepare him. So I realized I attributed saviness to him that he does not appear to have.

I very much doubt Trump could win. In fact, my expectation is that Trump running against Biden would motivate people to vote Biden again (i.e. against Trump). If the Reps get a different candidate (e.g. DeSantis), that would be a whole different story. Biden isn't electrifying anyone, and I'm not sure he would "get out the vote" for himself the way Trump would "get out the vote" against himself.

From what I see on fivethirtyeight, Biden's disapproval is pretty high, but when matched against Trump he's a full six points ahead.

What a gawdawful thought. How I hope you are wrong.

Trump won in 2016. He performed fairly well in 2020, in the midst of a economic collapse and the pandemic - he came within less than two percentage points of winning (PA was his tipping point state, where he lost by just over one point). Biden now has both the advantages and the baggage of incumbency - he's polling pretty poorly, given the state of the economy, and that's not a great place to start. And his age will be even more of a factor - expect the GOP to run just as much against Harris as Biden. Yes, Trump has some very serious negatives from his post-election behavior. But he still has all the right enemies.

Trump absolutely could win in 2024. Democrats who think they'd be significantly better off running against Trump than the other GOP wannabes are fooling themselves.

Trump absolutely could win in 2024. Democrats who think they'd be significantly better off running against Trump than the other GOP wannabes are fooling themselves.

That prospect disturbs me. If you have an unfinished trial, is that suspended? What if he's convicted of a serious crime prior to taking the oath? I assume he will pardon himself, and I think the court will agree he can. Bleak.

If you have an unfinished trial, is that suspended? What if he's convicted of a serious crime prior to taking the oath? I assume he will pardon himself, and I think the court will agree he can.

As to the first question, no way that comes up. I think there is no chance that the court will schedule a trial that would run through early November 2024. Either they'll be ready to go several months before then, or it will get pushed until after the election. That probably holds true even if Trump isn't the nominee, honestly. I think the judge will probably reason that it's best for everyone if the trial isn't right around the election. I would agree with that.

So - what if he's the nominee and convicted in the late summer? Not much. I think Trump will be granted post-trial release pending appeal, no matter what. He meets the criteria, even without considering the unique circumstances of the election. He's under constant supervision by a Secret Service detail - he's zero flight risk, zero risk to cause injury to others, and there's very genuine appealable issue in whether the decision to allow the DOJ to break attorney-client privilege on the crime-fraud exception was correct.

If he's elected, I expect the court would rule that his sentence would be served after his term of office. The Judiciary can't lock up the Executive. And then he would pardon himself, and that would be that.

Albaby

If he's elected, I expect the court would rule that his sentence would be served after his term of office. The Judiciary can't lock up the Executive. And then he would pardon himself, and that would be that.

Albaby

Thanks Albaby, That's good food for thought. :) Still a little bleak though.

If he's elected, I expect the court would rule that his sentence would be served after his term of office. The Judiciary can't lock up the Executive. And then he would pardon himself, and that would be that.

Wasn't there some legal question around whether he could actually pardon himself, or is that "settled" now?

Wasn't there some legal question around whether he could actually pardon himself, or is that "settled" now?

Whether the President can pardon himself is still an open legal question, at least academically. But while legal scholars might vigorously debate over it, it's pretty unlikely that the courts will.

The only scenario where this arises is if Trump has been elected. If he was previously convicted, then the question will get presented to a court (probably the 11th Circuit) during his appeal of that conviction. Trump's lawyers will argue that the appeal is moot and the matter should be discharged because a pardon has been granted. On the other side is the DOJ - which Trump is now the head of.

I think it's kind of unlikely that DOJ will vigorously fight the Trump team's request. In fact, I think they'll probably agree with it. Certainly in no small part because Trump (and his appointed AG) will be leading the DOJ - but also because I think that's where DOJ's institutional leanings would be anyway. If the parties agree on an issue of law, no matter how much the academic legal community (and others) might disagree, the court is almost certainly going to just accept that and decide the case on that basis.

(If the trial hasn't happened yet, we probably never get to this point - DOJ just drops the charges.)

The Judiciary can't lock up the Executive.

Why not? Balance of powers, right? If the Judiciary can't lock up the Executive, then the Executive can do whatever they like with impunity. The three branches are supposed to check each other's power.

Why not? Balance of powers, right? If the Judiciary can't lock up the Executive, then the Executive can do whatever they like with impunity. The three branches are supposed to check each other's power.

Check each other's power - but not be in a position to prevent the other branch from functioning.

The Judiciary has the power to tell the Executive Branch that it has to follow the laws. But it can't put the Executive in prison. If the Executive needs to travel to Europe for a summit, or to Washington to give the State of the Union Address, or to the War Room to oversee defense operations, the Judiciary can't impede him from doing that.

When Clinton was being sued, the Court held that he could be subject to ordinary judicial processes - but that was based on a finding that participating in a civil suit was a sufficiently minor imposition on conducting the affairs of the Executive that it wouldn't violate separation of powers. The Court found that the Judicial function could be exercised in a way that did not impede the Executive function. But forcing the President to serve a term of confinement can't possibly meet that standard. And honestly, can't work practically - you can't have the President in a jail cell, removed from the Pentagon chain of command and the nuclear codes and everything else.

In today's world, there's literally no possible way for the President to carry out the required duties of the office if confined to a single location. Given that, I think the courts would (correctly) determine that the Judiciary is precluded from imprisoning the Executive. Especially since there is a solution that would avoid that conflict of powers: just set the start date of his sentence to after the conclusion of his term. That happens all the time in criminal proceedings - recently and notably, Elizabeth Holmes was sentenced in November and didn't start her prison term until six months later. Delaying for a few years would be longer than is usual, but also not unprecedented where circumstances call for it - using another famous person example, when the "Real Housewives" husband and wife were sentenced to tax fraud, the husband's prison term didn't start until the wife's was over (several years after trial), to avoid having them both in jail simultaneously when they had minor children.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.