Lock Him Up! Trump Charged with Crimes He Believes Candidates Can Be Charged With

While I was asleep, the news broke that DOJ issued a summons to Trump to appear to be arraigned in SDFL Tuesday at 3PM.

Trump has not seen the indictment yet, but Jim Trusty says that based on the summons, there are seven crimes charged:

  • 18 USC 793(e): hoarding (and possibly disseminating) stolen classified documents
  • 18 USC 1512(k): conspiracy to obstruct justice
  • 18 USC 1512(b)(2)(a): inducing someone to withhold testimony (possibly asking Nauta to withhold testimony, or setting Evan Corcoran up to make incorrect statements)
  • 18 USC 1512(c)(1): concealing a document (possibly altering surveillance video)
  • 18 USC 1519: concealing a document (probably for hiding docs from Evan Corcoran)
  • 18 USC 1001(a)(1): concealing a material fact (possibly false statements to NARA and DOJ)
  • 18 USC 1001(a)(2): false statement

Until we see the indictment, this is a game of telephone through lawyers who are woefully inappropriate for this kind of investigation. For example, DOJ often charges multiple counts of 18 USC 793(e), one for each stolen classified document they want to tell a story about. Here’s how DOJ did it in the case of Hal Martin:

Similarly, we know of several instances that might be charged under the inducement charge, 18 USC 1512(b)(2)(a): including at least Evan Corcoran, Alex Cannon, and Walt Nauta. Each could be charged separately.

So until we see an indictment, it will be unclear what story DOJ is telling.

Update: Corrected Trump’s summons date.

170 replies
  1. hollywood says:

    Will we see the indictment before Trump is arraigned on Tuesday? When will it appear in PACER?

    • Leu2500 says:

      People, such as Joyce Vance, are asking for the indictment to be unsealed b4 arraignment, such as was done with Trump’s indictment in NYC.

      But DoJ has to ask a judge to do that, which takes time, so who knows.

      • Terrapin says:

        Can you believe Aileen Cannon has been assigned? What luck for Trump. She’ll probably order the indictment to remain sealed AFTER the arraignment. If she really gets brazen, she’ll dismiss the indictment.

    • punaise says:

      “If it’s Tuesday, it must be Belgium”

      (pointless pop culture reference from the 70s)

  2. hollywood says:

    Is it definitive that the case will proceed in Florida as opposed to DC? Is there any chance that Eileen (Boom Boom) Cannon can get her hands on the case?

  3. Robot17 says:

    Yikes. According to federal sentencing guidelines at w#w.sentencing.u$ 262 to 327 months. Assuming he hasn’t been convicted elsewhere if he loses in this case. One count of 18 USC 793(e) applying 2M3.2 (gathering National Defense Information – Top Secret) 3b1.3 (Abuse of Position of Trust) 3c1.1 (Obstructing or Impeding the Administration of Justice). He could bring it down substantially by accepting responsibility to 210 – 262 months.

    Could that be right for one count for a first-time offender? Seems pretty heavy duty. Maybe I’m wrong? As much as I dislike Trump I find it hard to wish that on anyone unless the circumstances are very severe.

    • xyxyxyxy says:

      By accepting responsibility?
      McCarthy: “I, and every American who believes in the rule of law, stand with President Trump against this grave injustice. House Republicans will hold this brazen weaponization of power accountable.
      With enemies like McCarthy, who needs to accept responsibility?

    • wasD4v1d says:

      After off the record but formal requests, multiple subpoenas and searches, and multiple feints (drains pool into a server room?) I think the situation is severe enough. He was taunting Justice, daring the government to govern. The lawyers among you might be able to suggest whether aggravating factors might apply though I suspect the actual punishment rendered will be light out of respect to the office.

      • Robot17 says:

        Hard to say but Trump never ceases to amaze me. He’s capable of some pretty outlandish stuff.

      • BrokenPromises says:

        Oh the irony of the foolishness of humans (not directed at you here). True respect for the office, the constitution, the rule of law and the people calls for the maximum severity of sentence for the heinous crimes and betrayals of DJT as a POTUS. Respect for the office as a choice to let him off easy is the equivalent of a Mom claiming her serial murder son is actually a good boy who doesn’t deserve life in prison. It is aligning oneself with the criminal behavior.

        • bmaz says:

          “True respect for the office, the constitution, the rule of law and the people calls for the maximum severity of sentence…”

          Lol. Do you also support the death penalty?

  4. taluslope says:

    What are the chances of a plea deal? Trump pleads guilty, perhaps serves time at MAL, and drops out of the 2024 race. I really hated the Nixon pardon but the practicality of a former president in a federal prison seems problematic. To my mind the nation is better off by Trump admitting guilt and never coming near the presidency again. What are the chances of Trump admitting guilt, not likely admittedly. But who knows, I can’t imagine being DJT and staring at the jaws of federal prison.

    The other thought I’ve had for awhile now is who will be the first of the 2024 Republican candidates to say, vote for me, I’ll pardon Trump.

    In any case, what is the over/under on DJT serving any prison time? Problem for Trump is he is facing too many indictments.

    • Tom Christopher says:

      To me, it all comes down to whether he showed or used as leverage or blackmail, any national security document to anyone not cleared to view it (like pool boys or personal aids or foreign governments). If he has, he cannot avoid prison for that.

    • EuroTark says:

      At this point we only know what Team Trump wants us to know. DOJ has not said anything, and is unlikely to leak anything.

  5. Badger Robert says:

    These are just the Florida charges. I think there will be Jan 6 charges in Washington, also. But we will have to wait and see. It might be helpful to point out the advantages to the prosecution in having a Special Counsel heading the investigation and prosecution.

    • Robot17 says:

      I don’t think the Florida bit precludes subsequent DC indictments related to the documents.

  6. wetzel says:

    If you are reading breaking news the days before unsealed indictments it is usually from the defense. I think I remember Marcy saying something like that not too long ago. If you look at the coverage. Meadows supposedly removed 1000 pages on the last night of Trump’s presidency. In some of the coverage I have seen the story is Trump was looking for exculpation.

    So this is all about Russiagate secrets. Donald was going to get to the bottom of it all like O.J. The GOP has already settled stuck with Trump’s lies through the two impeachments. They are going to shamelessly pretend this is some deep state shit, and Trump will try to capture the 25% in the GOP. With a crowded field Trump may only get 25-30% and still win the nomination. The stink will pervade. The GOP will lose historically and change their name back to the Whigs.

    • Les TreBony says:

      This may be a bit off topic, but what is being publicly done in Republican controlled states leads me to doubt that getting the most votes (despite massive voter suppression) is going to mean much. The SC may not need to install a president this time.

      [Thanks for updating your username to meet the 8 letter minimum. /~Rayne]

  7. Spank Flaps says:

    EW’s recent reporting on Trump being “gate-kept” through Boris Epshteyn, and being fed a false rosey picture of his legal troubles…
    Obviously it’s normal for super-fascists like Trump to be surrounded by incompetent sycophants.
    Trump knows he is guilty of everything, but thinks he can beat the system, partly because his fluffers have given him bad advice, partly through narcissism, and his fetishisation of returning to the White House.
    If he had any sensible advisors, they’d tell him to skip the country.
    I do occasionally see clever tactics from Team Trump, which makes me think there is some old school GOP brains behind the scenes. But it’s rare to see, and the Trump-stans seem to have the most influence on him.

    • Rayne says:

      One reason apart from manipulation for gatekeeping information to Trump is to manage the reaction of a volatile man who likely suffers from frontotemporal dementia. Imagine what kind of pyroclastic flow of incriminating bullshit Trump would release if the information he received wasn’t managed. Imagine what delusional crap would also erupt from Trump when he can barely restrain himself under gatekeeping.

      One only needs to read up on that July 2021 phone call in which Trump referred to classified documents to understand the magnitude of the problem.

      In a way the gatekeeping serves both the Trump circle of conspirators and the DOJ — the former by not being incriminated openly for even more crimes, and the latter by not having to dig through even more bullshit which may not pan out because Trump’s chronic lying has become chronic delusions.

      • Rwood0808 says:

        “…pyroclastic flow of incriminating bullshit”

        That right there is the cherry on top of this indictment news!

      • LeeNLP941 says:

        Rayne, were you serious in your comment about Trump having frontotemporal lobe dementia, and if so, what symptoms do you see that suggest this? This is a topic I have some background in, and it has never occurred to me as a diagnosis that applies to Trump.

        • Rayne says:

          Serious as a heart attack. His increasingly belligerent behavior is one attribute; I’m sure much of this has been shielded from the public but some of it has leaked out like his plate-throwing ketchup tossing Cassidy Hutchison reported in testimony. Other symptoms I’ve noticed since 2017 marked X; the others may exist but I haven’t noticed them, marked ?:

          Behavioral symptoms:
          _X_ Increasingly inappropriate social behavior
          _X_ Loss of empathy and other interpersonal skills, such as having sensitivity to another’s feelings
          _X_ Lack of judgment
          _X_ Loss of inhibition
          _X_ Lack of interest (apathy), which can be mistaken for depression
          _?_ Repetitive compulsive behavior, such as tapping, clapping or smacking lips
          _?_ A decline in personal hygiene
          _?_ Changes in eating habits, usually overeating or developing a preference for sweets and carbohydrates
          _?_ Eating inedible objects
          _?_ Compulsively wanting to put things in the mouth

          Speech and language symptoms:
          _X_ Increasing difficulty in using and understanding written and spoken language, such as having trouble finding the right word to use in speech or naming objects
          _X_ Trouble naming things, possibly replacing a specific word with a more general word such as “it” for pen
          _X_ No longer knowing word meanings
          _?_ Having hesitant speech that may sound telegraphic
          _?_ Making mistakes in sentence construction

          Motor disorders:
          _?_ Tremor
          _?_ Rigidity
          _X_ Muscle spasms or twitches
          _X_ Poor coordination
          _?_ Difficulty swallowing
          _?_ Muscle weakness
          _?_ Inappropriate laughing or crying
          _X_ Falls or walking problems

          Biggest risk factors: chronic drug abuse and poor diet.

        • nord dakota says:

          IDK, wouldn’t there have been more evidence of progression by now?
          “Grumpy Old Men” is a medical thing, related to brain shrinkage. If he’s always been obnoxious this could simply enhance the more disgusting aspects.
          (Not using “Grumpy Old Men” as medical terminology but have seen that phrasing used in popular articles about aging and the brain)

        • nord dakota says:

          “Most studies show that FTD is steadily progressive, with declining function in everyday life and accumulation of social, cognitive, and neurological disabilities leading to complete dependency requiring institutional care over a course of 6–8 years[9].”

        • Rayne says:

          It has been progressive over the course of the last 8 years.

          Like the times he needed two hands to hold a glass or bottle of water.
          The times he had dyskinesia in his upper back/shoulder while speaking at a podium.
          His right foot dragging on many occasions.
          His difficulty walking down small steps (ex. when Teresa May had to help in in UK) or ramps (ex. when he needed assistance while walking down a ramp at a graduation).
          His struggles with words like origin saying orange instead, as well as odd tongue movements.
          I could go on, but you need only look at videos from 2015 and earlier and compare them to those 4 or more years later.

        • Franktoo says:

          Respectfully Rayne, while in the White House, a president’s health and stress is frequently monitored by the White House physician. And more frequently during the COVID pandemic. Especially when Trump insisted on taking HCQ to prevent COVID after Trump was exposed. The danger of COVID was eliminated for six months by vaccination, but returned for the Delta and Omicron surges. If Trump has/had FTD, his doctors should have been more likely to identify it than you. What a doctor would or should do after making such a diagnosis is an interesting question.

        • Rayne says:

          Do you remember the odd visit Trump made in autumn of 2019 to Walter Reed, and how the public was never formally told in advance that he was going, never told formally afterward the reason for the visit?

          Do you remember it took a year before the public learned Trump demanded health care personnel sign NDAs at Walter Reed before they were assigned to his case?

          Two years later we were supposed to believe a rather vague reference in a former First Lady’s staffer’s book about the reason Trump went to Reed?

          That. And then whatever we watched happen after he was diagnosed with COVID, because you can bet personnel were once again obligated to sign Trump’s goddamned NDAs.

          I’d like to recommend you go back through all the observations and concerns the group Duty to Warn shared during Trump’s term. They didn’t blow off the possibility Trump has FTD in addition to or compounding his malignant narcissism.

        • -mamake- says:

          Within my extended family (individual with a clear FTLD diagnosis) the decline was moderate but significant (and fatal) in the end.

        • xyxyxyxy says:

          That Smith indictment shows you’re right on.
          But it feels like he’s had many of these traits since birth and gotten worse as the pile of crimes kept happening over the decades; there’s only so much a person can handle before they crack.
          Mary Trump, a professional practitioner, and you may be as well or should be, has said so over and over since his inauguration.
          As has David Cay Johnston for decades and Michael Cohen who escaped the cult by getting caught early for his crimes, for the last few years.
          Mary and Cohen may have bias, as she claims she’s been screwed by him and his judge sister and Cohen by his arrest and incarceration, but why would you and Cay Johnston?
          His sister probably has some if not all the same traits as he does.
          It would be interesting to see if his sister’s story follows the same pattern over her life and legal career.
          And the wackos of the Party are crying foul, although it was all pre-planned, like the Barr pre-Mueller report release news conference.
          And all his normal lawyers have finally awoken and are jumping ship while Habas says whatever about lawyering.

  8. David F. Snyder says:

    I wonder now what the response of domestic-terrorists-in-waiting will be on Tuesday.

  9. Zinsky123 says:

    Agreed that this is speculation about the charges until we see the actual indictment. But I do have a layman’s question for Marcy or any attorney’s out there (and please don’t tear me to shreds just for asking): Why did Jack Smith and team not charge Trump under 18 USC 2071 Concealment, removal or destruction of official documents generally? One of the penalties prescribed is disqualification from ever holding public office again and isn’t that what we want?

    • Kennygauss says:

      I wonder the same? I am no legal eagle, but want to see trump buried! If possible!

    • WilliamOckham says:

      It seems as certain as one can be about legal precedents that 18 USC 2071 can’t be applied to public offices whose qualifications are set in the constitution. See Powell v. McCormack and U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton.

      I am not now, nor have I ever been a member of the legal profession, so take what I say with a grain of salt. From a practical perspective, I think one of the goals of the charging decision in this case is to clearly differentiate it from stuff like Pence and Biden did. I think it’s a lot harder to make a legitimate case against an ex-President than people think. Trump made it much easier by doing some really stupid sh*t.

      Obligatory disclaimer: The Espionage Act is a terrible law that can and has been used to violate some people’s basic human rights. This isn’t one of those cases. Based on the public record, construed in the most beneficial light to the accused, Trump apparently engaged in actual espionage. Unlike most defendants (in Espionage Act cases and criminal cases generally), he has the resources to take advantage of all the rights our system supposedly affords anyone who is accused of a crime. I don’t begrudge him that. I want a society where everyone accused of a crime has those protections.

    • Ebenezer Scrooge says:

      I have no idea why DoJ didn’t charge Trump with Section 2071. But there are serious constitutional doubts whether a statute can disqualify a person from holding federal elected office. The Constitutional remedies (e.g., impeachment, 14th Amendment) are likely exclusive.

    • StevenL says:

      Agree with WilliamOckham-

      Appears a clear focus on obstruction element, with but a single unlawful retention charge to hold the whole story together.

      Trump would have been fine had he turned in all marked docs in response to subpoena, but he’s a moron obsessed with a victimization narrative.

      Nothing gets a prosecutor’s juices flowing like the hint of obstruction. He got away with it last time because he corruptly pardoned everyone who lied for him, but that was not a feasible strategy this time.

      Great title to to post, Marcy, a point too little remarked upon elsewhere.

      • RitaRita says:

        Trump had several chances to turn over the documents without facing more than mild criticism: When National Archives made its first request, when DOJ made its first request, even after receipt of the subpoena.

        Even if he thought that the documents were rightfully his, he could have pursued legal recourse. Instead he, as Bill Barr said, “jerked DOJ around” more than once and in a variety of ways. I hope, but don’t expect, that the indictment will shed some light on why Trump chose to be such a jerk.

  10. Ms.LizHillsdale says:

    The AP reports that the indictment will be released before Tuesday.

    [Link removed because it was bad]

  11. rattlemullet says:

    Anxiously awaiting the unsealing of the indictment for the precise charges will be known. Until then all is speculation. Everything I read about the Special Council is that he is an utmost professional and would not bring charges against the former president, knowing the gravity of failure, without having an extremely good chance of conviction, even in Florida a very tough place to get convictions of high profile federal crimes.

  12. Oldtulsadude says:

    Grab ‘em by the Grand Jury. When you’re a special prosecutor, they let you do it.

  13. harpie says:

    CNN has a partial TRANSCRIPT of the audio from the TRUMP Bedminster meeting:

    Exclusive: Donald Trump admits on tape he didn’t declassify ‘secret information’ https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/09/politics/trump-tape-didnt-declassify-secret-information/index.html Paula Reid and Jeremy Herb, CNN Published 7:55 AM EDT, Fri June 9, 2023

    […] “As president, I could have declassified, but now I can’t,” Trump says, according to the transcript.
    “Secret. This is secret information. Look, look at this,” Trump says at one point, according to the transcript. “This was done by the military and given to me.”
    “Well, with Milley – uh, let me see that, I’ll show you an example. He said that I wanted to attack Iran. Isn’t that amazing? I have a big pile of papers, this thing just came up. Look. This was him,” Trump says, according to the transcript. “They presented me this – this is off the record, but – they presented me this. This was him. This was the Defense Department and him. We looked at some. This was him. This wasn’t done by me, this was him.”

    Trump continues: “All sorts of stuff – pages long, look. Wait a minute, let’s see here. I just found, isn’t that amazing? This totally wins my case, you know. Except it is like, highly confidential. Secret. This is secret information. Look, look at this.” […]

    TRUMP: “I have a big pile of papers” [You don’t say!]

    • Doug_Fir says:

      Finally, something I’m qualified to comment on!

      As a school bus driver, it’s my expert opinion that Trump sounds like a grade two kid in that transcript.

      • P J Evans says:

        A kid desperate for the approval of the Cool Kids, saying “I have a secret and I won’t tell you”.

      • LeeNLP941 says:

        This made me smile at first, then to feel a bit sad. I hear a kid desperate to please his controlling, unpleasable father. “Look at me dad- I’m king of the world! How am I doing now, Dad?”

        As I said, it makes me sad. Or at least it makes the “better angel of my nature” sad. I don’t in the least think of this as an excuse or even a mitigating factor. I believe 100% in the need for the fair application of the rule of law in our imperfect world. I just can’t bring myself to take pleasure in it.

      • RitaRita says:

        Trump’s usual m.o. is to make statements, true or not, without factual support. He just makes assertions. It will be ironic if one of the times he decided to rely on documentary evidence proves to be useful in his undoing.

  14. PeteT0323 says:

    What are the likeley restrictions the court will put on Trump based on possible counts in the indictment?

    I am thinking along the lines of him not being able to control his tongue, but also fundraising off of his “misfortune”.

    We know he is unable to control himself so I have to imagine that something will come up where Trump pisses off the assigned judge and/or violates terms of his post arraignment – many times.

    • bmaz says:

      There should be no restrictions, and certainly not on his speech. There is not yet a conviction, let’s not do this. The only pre-trial restrictions out be about flight and danger, and it hard to see that.

  15. Frank Probst says:

    I’m also interested in what, if anything, will be done to restrict his movements after being charged under the Espionage Act. Personally, I don’t think he’d skip any court appearance that he’s legally required to be present for, but I DO think he’d thumb his nose at the DOJ by jetting off to one of his foreign properties for a weekend. And since he’s running for President, he’s constantly going to be jetting from one place to another to campaign.

  16. bmaz says:

    Oh JMFC:


    NEW: Trump-appointed US district court judge Aileen Cannon was listed on the summons sent to Trump yesterday, per ppl familiar — indicating she may be the presiding judge. Cannon granted Trump a special master during the investigation last year. Confirming ABC News.

    How dumb can DOJ be?

    • Ewan Woodsend says:

      In a tv series, this would be derided by the critics as too much, not believable, not the way things happen in real life. Well. I am going to give Perry Mason another look now.

    • JonathanW says:

      bmaz, I was coming to this thread because I just saw this news and wanted to ask you: was this entirely predictable? The ABC article I saw (linked by emptywheel on twitter) implies that the court would not have picked a judge at random, but would have assigned it to one that was already familiar with the proceedings (so both Cannon and the original magistrate judge apparently appear on the summons). So accordingly, DOJ would have known they’re back in Cannon’s courtroom by charging in this district. I have no experience in this area, so I wanted to ask those who do.

      • JonathanW says:

        Snark alert: maybe DOJ is thinking “if we win this case with Cannon as the judge then it will be obvious that it was a solid case”. Or maybe they just didn’t think about it or didn’t think they could do anything about it?

      • bmaz says:

        I do not know what the hell is going on. But, theoretically, a selective civil case filed by Trump has no relation to a criminal case affirmatively filed by a supposedly independent “special prosecutor”, Jack Smith.

        If I were Cannon, I would not even think about recusing. Smith walked straight into this, just as Garland did on the search warrant. I am sure they are smarter than I am, but I wonder sometimes.

        We will see.

        • Robot17 says:

          Kinda makes me happy Bragg and Willis didn’t pay any attention to DoJ. Like em or not they haven’t tripped into this kind of potentially brain calcifying “strategy”. Maybe Smith had no choice. Maybe (I think probably) this has been gamed out. But you’re absolutely right that Cannon isn’t going anywhere, especially since she’s pretty much jumped the shark before and really only cares about her fans.

          I really wonder about how experienced the fed attorneys are when it comes down to it. The county prosecutors go to trial. The feds? Negotiate pleas mostly?

        • bmaz says:

          Bragg and Willis are still complete bullshit. I don’t like where Smith and DOJ has gone with this to date, but they deserve credit for not being noisy political assholes like Bragg and Willis.

        • Robot17 says:

          Well… now that the cover is off, I guess maybe it doesn’t matter who the judge is cuz reading the indictment it seems Don Jr. would have to adjudicate fairly. OMG what stupidity. Of course a few hundred bucks to the right juror could hang it in Florida. Bet there’s a slush fund already in DJT “empire”.

    • Rwood0808 says:

      As a Floridian, I have to wonder if Smith truly understands the state at all.

      When she behaves as expected, how much damage can she do here?

      • Rwood0808 says:

        As soon as I see the word “should” attached to Cannon I have to dismiss the entire argument.

        She, like most GQP/FS members, doesnt follow that line of thinking. She wont do what she should but just the opposite. She will do whatever she wants until forced not to or overruled.

      • bmaz says:

        Lol, sure. Should Cannon recuse? Maybe. Will she? Who knows. What a self inflicted, and unnecessary nightmare. Maybe will turn out fine for Smith, DOJ and the people, and I hope it does. But jeebus.

        • ccinmfd88 says:

          Since double jeopardy rules out the prosecution appealing a “not guilty” verdict, is it possible that DOJ believes that its evidence is so strong that it will prevail with a guilty verdict – even in Florida and with Judge Cannon? And given that verdict expectation, would the next question be: Would Judge Cannon order a sentence so lenient that the prosecution would then be able to appeal it seeking a harsher sentence? In other words, is the case so strong that the real and only “downside” in filing the case in Florida is in the sentencing and not the actual verdict, in DOJ’s strategic reasoning?

          [Thanks for updating your username to meet the 8 letter minimum (at least I assume that’s why the name change). /~Rayne]

      • Doctor My Eyes says:

        Is it required somewhere that liberals have to play dumb and pretend the authoritarians act in good faith??? There at least seems to be a rule that Democrats must never enjoy a clear-cut victory. This is going to be beyond painful. I envision long posts by Marcy taking apart Cannon’s obfuscation rather than discussion of the actual issues. The media will, of course, pretend everything is normal.

        Irrationally, the GOP response has been very upsetting to me. They are a party that cares nothing about the constitution. Nothing.

        There’s a good chance this will be worse than not charging him at all.


        • Rayne says:

          There at least seems to be a rule that Democrats must never enjoy a clear-cut victory.

          Things like obstruction, regulatory capture, gerrymandering, voter suppression, etc. have a way of ensuring this.

          the GOP response has been very upsetting to me.

          I’m rather enjoying the widening GOP field for POTUS — it’s their response to all of Trump’s criminality and takeover of the GOP. It’s an indicator things are not at all well with the GOP and popcorn futures are surely going to rise.

        • Doctor My Eyes says:

          I hear you, but no one forced Smith to pretend Cannon is not a disaster to his case. The Democrats actively participate in the fiction of playing in a fair system. This is because they rely on corporate money, too, and don’t really want to deliver. They just have to convince their constituency enough to get their votes. This is starting to smell very much like more of the same. I would have preferred just to “look forward, not back” to the charade we’re about to see. Yeah, in the end, I think it will “tear the country apart”.

          Sorry, but I’m beside myself. This is no small thing. I see nothing but further corroding of the system and more confusion about a former president who is, provably, a clear and present danger.

          I’ll follow a bit longer, but I’m expecting to have to bail out of watching the details. It’s just too predictable and painful.

        • Rayne says:

          My gut tells me this was gamed out, somebody played SimFedCourt and this is where it went. I guess we’ve bought the ticket whether we like it or not.

          “No sympathy for the devil; keep that in mind. Buy the ticket, take the ride…and if it occasionally gets a little heavier than what you had in mind, well…maybe chalk it up to forced consciousness expansion: Tune in, freak out, get beaten.”

          ― Hunter S. Thompson, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas

        • Doctor My Eyes says:

          Okay, Rayne. I’ll see if I can adopt a little of that attitude.

          Trump very likely sold classified information to our enemies, possibly resulting in the actual murder of intelligence assets. And the GOP simply doesn’t care. In my view, the country I love is screwed. I’ll try to calm down.

        • Rayne says:

          Oh honey, Trump likely assassinated a country’s military leader using the US military on behalf of his sponsors. He betrayed our intelligence community over Twitter by disclosing a classified image of the same country’s failed rocket launch. I am absolutely certain there’s much, much more he did to sell out this country with the attempted Ukraine quid pro quo being the least of it, and the GOP gave him carte blanche to do it because they were either cowed by compromise or got a cut of the action.

          Christ, he literally attempted at least one war crime.

          The screwing isn’t new. It’s ongoing. This is simply the closest we’ve gotten to stopping Trump’s repeated grabbing us by the figurative pussy.

        • BrokenPromises says:

          Let’s not overreact performing unbidden acts of futureing (a term coined by a friend for the fear of outcomes) or filling in the blanks as I prefer to call it. We don’t know how this will play out and Cannon is not god nor the sole and final arbiter of the case. Juries decide. Precedent pops up. Lawyers file motions and finally don’t forget that the appeals court shut her down the first time.

        • Doctor My Eyes says:

          Some situations merit strong reactions. Based on history and the current situation, I don’t see things going well. I don’t think I’m over-reacting in the least. All Cannon has to do is prejudice one juror with her gaslighting. Actually, it will probably be easy.

          Frankly, today for the first time I see a path for Trump to be re-elected. It is not far-fetched that this trial can be covered in such a way as to give fuel to the notion of a Biden deep state going after Trump. This could get him sympathy from the people who have become disgusted with him, or at least plant doubt in their minds.

          I’ll go away now.

        • Doctor My Eyes says:

          There is more to this than party politics. One of the two major parties actively spreads lies undermining democracy and the US government. I’m sorry, but there is nothing entertaining or amusing about this.

        • Rayne says:

          You’ve been here long enough to know I don’t think much of the GOP; to be more specific, I don’t think the GOP is a legitimate political party but instead has steadily become an organized crime syndicate which uses politics as its front.

          And if you think this is purely an amusement to me, I’d like to remind you BIPOC and LGBTQ+ and women have had to endure a lot more bullshit than Trump over the course of this country’s history. This is annoying and frustrating, but it’s not the end, it’s not done, and some of us don’t have the luxury of taking a move to the shade when circumstances get uncomfortable. The choice is going out on our knees or on our feet.

        • Doctor My Eyes says:

          I didn’t mean to come on as accusing you of not caring. I’m just really upset. I expect your history may have something to do with your being practiced at finding ways to cope that don’t make you crazy.

        • Paulka says:

          Can someone explain the alternatives that would have avoided cannon? My understanding is that would be filing in DC. If so wouldn’t that lead to a protracted argument over venue that even if won may cause any conviction to be overturned upon appeal. Avoiding the delay allows for the possibility this case is resolved before 11/24, not that I think there is a chance of that.

          [Welcome to emptywheel. SECOND REQUEST: Please choose and use a unique username with a minimum of 8 letters. We are moving to a new minimum standard to support community security. With only (160) total comments at this site to date, you will not be grandfathered to keep your existing username. Thanks. /~Rayne]

      • Elvishaslefthebuilding says:

        If Ms. Vance is correct, Trump screwed himself by originally bringing a civil case in Cannon’s court as it seems that there is precedent for her to be reassigned. He would have been a lot better off having her as an untainted trial judge where she would have been relatively free to put her thumb on the scales of justice. Not being a criminal lawyer, I’m not sure how far a judge can go, but I do know that an acquittal is nonappealable.

    • Koan_09JUN2023_1329h says:

      Joyce Vance used to sit appellate on the 11th circuit and she is confident this isn’t going anywhere:

      “..This is persuasive authority that Judge Cannon must step aside if the case falls to her as a permanent assignment. Her court & certainly the 11th won’t tolerate the damage it would do to their credibility if she failed to voluntarily recuse…”


      [Welcome to emptywheel. Please choose and use a unique username with a minimum of 8 letters. We are moving to a new minimum standard to support community security. Because your username is far too short it will be temporarily changed to match the date/time of your first known comment until you have a new compliant username. Thanks. /~Rayne]

    • Clare Kelly says:

      “It’s A Dangerous Thing To Mistake Speaking Without Thought For Speaking The Truth.”
      Benoit Blanc
      Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery

      This is the only “Highly credible” (media bias fact check) source I know of which has a moderator actively trying to knock the rating down.


  17. Ravenclaw says:

    Seeking clarification:

    The post describes 18 USC 793(e) as “hoarding (and possibly disseminating) classified documents.” Based on earlier discussions here (and the Cornell Law link provided), I thought this statute related to hoarding or transmitting defense-related information – whether or not it was classified. (This because the statute in question predates the entire classification system.) In other words, this charge would not be affected by whether the ex-president had declassified the documents in question; if they relate in any way to military matters (or probably industrial information that is defense-related), they would be covered.

    Also wondering why there don’t seem to be any charges related to simply retaining possession of government property once one is out of office and the government (archives department) has requested the return of said property. (I forget the statute number on that one, sorry.)

  18. Konny_2022 says:

    I’m a little at a los with the various locations of the US District Court of the SDFL. As far as we know from Trump himself he is ordered to appear in Miami on Tuesday. Judge Cannon resides in Fort Pierce. The different locations were discussed last summer when Trump had filed his complaint exactly in Fort Pierce instead of West Palm Beach where the magistrate judge (Bruce Reinhart) resides who had approved the search warrant in the first place.

    Is it still possible to transfer the case to Fort Pierce if/when the indictment was filed in Miami?

  19. vigetnovus says:

    I was going to post something on how I think the guidelines offense level was 36, but forget it. It doesn’t matter now…. Now we know why Trump’s team has been as cool as a cucumber.

      • bmaz says:

        Lol, you got that prior to knowing the full evidence, much less conviction status? Are you psychic?

        • Robot17 says:

          Well, hahaha!? Ok, we don’t know the conviction rate yet. What ya spect the Smith batting average will be? Ok I’ll stop. I know it’s BS to speculate on this stuff.

  20. joel fisher says:

    SDFL; Judge Cannon. Where have we heard that name before? This is a colossal fuck-up.

  21. ZonkerHarris says:

    Non-attorney here…if this case stays with Judge Cannon, can Trump request a non-jury trial and take his chances with her?

      • joel fisher says:

        !2 Florida men/women or Judge Cannon? Both sides have to struggle on the jury waiver issue.

  22. Randy Baker says:

    Is there any 11th Circuit or Supreme Court authority acknowledging the possibility that a district judge’s rulings in a case are so incompetent and partisan as to demonstrate the judge is unable to fairly preside in that case, and thereby mandate recusal?

        • bidrec-gap says:

          “No man is a hero to his valet. This is not because the hero is not a hero, but because the valet is a valet.” — Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          Nicely chosen quote. Hegel is speaking as a man of his time, with the same blinders and prejudices.

          No gentlemen considers that his valet might think badly of him, and ordinarily wouldn’t care. The opinions of his valet, like the valet, are of no consequence. The valet, however, considers himself as worthy as any of his peers.

  23. Chris_09JUN2023_1230h says:

    Why would Smith take on the risk of having Cannon preside? Looks like a hazardous move.

    [Welcome to emptywheel. Please choose and use a unique username with a minimum of 8 letters. We are moving to a new minimum standard to support community security. Because your username “Chris” is far too common it will be temporarily changed to match the date/time of your first known comment until you have a new compliant username. Thanks. /~Rayne]

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      The district court’s rules and, presumably, the chief judge determine how cases are assigned. Which jurisdiction DoJ filed in is mostly a function of the district in which the most egregious behavior was allegedly committed. There is often more than one district in which a case can be filed, and there are rules for choosing among them. It’s where prosecutorial discretion comes in.

  24. Willis Warren says:

    For a party so intent on declaring him worthy of civil war, it says something that no one wants to be his lawyer. At the end of the day, there’s no one in the Republican party smart enough to run the country. All they can do is leach onto the rich and religious

  25. rattlemullet says:

    Now that 2 of his attorneys have resigned, who’s left to defend him? Are they experienced enough to handle such a case? Are we in public defender territory? Never a truer saying than “a man reaps what he sows.

  26. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Nice speaking indictment of Trump, with pictures. Evidence of knowledge, intent, and conduct will be damning, if true.

  27. earlofhuntingdon says:

    My compliments to the moderator(s). Lots of work you have and will be doing. Much appreciated.

    [Thanks. It’s a bit woolly right now but it could be worse. /~Rayne]

  28. harpie says:

    https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000188-a12f-db74-ab98-b3ff4de50000 []

    [pdf11/49] April 2021
    Trump Employee 2: We can definitely make it work if we move his papers into the lake room?

    Trump Employee 1: There is still a little room in the shower where his other stuff is. Is it only his papers he cares about? There’s some other stuff in there that are not papers. Could that go to storage? Or does he want everything in there on property

    Trump Employee 2: Yes – anything that’s not the beautiful mind paper boxes can definitely go to storage. Want to take a look at the space and star moving tomorrow AM?

    “Beautiful mind paper boxes”… LOL!

  29. rattlemullet says:

    I answered my previous post.

    From AP-Trump posted Friday on his Truth Social platform that Todd Blanche will lead his defense in the federal case, along with “a firm to be named later,” replacing his previous lawyers, Jim Trusty and John Rowley.

    • FL Resister says:

      Donald Trump hires Boris Ephsteyn’s attorney after three attorneys working on the case quit at indictment time, all citing Boris as a major problem.
      Will be interested in what informed minds say about Blanche’s efforts on behalf of his two clients in future threads.

Comments are closed.