By Audrey Sawyer
WASHINGTON, DC – More than two and a half years after a pro-Donald Trump mob stormed the Capitol on Jan 6, 2021, in what is known to be the worst attack on Congress since the War of 1812, another indictment has been issued against the former President for election interference.
The other two separate federal indictments were issued in June, including one issued by special prosecutor Jack Smith, bringing charges in Florida accusing Trump of illegally holding onto a sensitive trove of national defense documents and then obstructing the government’s attempts to get them back. That case goes to trial (if as scheduled) in May.
The most recent indictment, filed by Smith in the federal court in DC, claims Trump is accountable for three conspiracies: one to defraud the United States, the second to obstruct an official government proceeding, and the third to deprive people of civil rights provided by the federal law or Constitution. The fourth count is regarding an obstruction of official proceeding.
The federal grand jury had returned the indictment slightly over eight months after Attorney General Merrick B. Garland appointed Smith (career federal prosecutor) to examine both classified document inquiries about Trump and election tampering.
The charges are a notable moment in U.S. history because it involves a former president while currently in the middle of a campaign to return to the White House, who is being charged over attempts to use governmental powers to subvert democracy and stay in office against the will of the voters.
New information emerged from the Jan. 6 House Hearings, including White House counsel Pat A. Cipollone, questioning Trump to “pull back” on objections to President Biden’s victory being certified by Congress hours after the rioters had entered the building.
Trump, responding to the recent charges, stated Tuesday, “Why did they wait two and a half years to bring these fake charges, right in the middle of President Trump’s winning campaign for 2024?” He called it election interference, before comparing the Biden administration to Nazi Germany.
In addition to his federal cases in both elections and documents cases, Trump has legal trouble in state courts. One charge is from the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office centering on hush money payments made to pornstar Stormy Daniels in the runup to the 2016 election.
There is also a pending indictment out of Georgia for election fraud. That indictment is expected soon.
All three indictments against Trump came the day after damaging accusations were revealed about Joe Biden and his family’s crimes.
What a coincidence.
If that’s your reaction to all of this, I’m not sure how this country is going to survive.
I don’t think that one needs to be a supporter of Trump to recognize bias in the media, and possibly in regard to prosecutions. (The latter being more-difficult to gauge.)
Prior to Trump, no president conspired to remain in power after losing an election. Think about that for a second.
How can a country survive when the justice department is totally biased against the opposition party’s leading candidate
[edited]
The same justice department that is prosecuting the presidents son, and he is not jumping in with a pardon like trump did with his many criminally convicted aides?
Yeah.. “bias”
trumps crimes were mostly committed in plain sight, and if you read the indictment it is a tale of REPUBLICANS saving our democracy by standing up to the leader of their own party.
if the right gets any more cultish / Fascist than it already is, then the next time, the loyalists are going to go along with the lies, declare the election was rigged, and just refuse to concede defeat… and our democracy is done.
To that extent, the criminal conviction of trump and the upholding of standards for democracy in this case, is incredibly important. His behavior cannot be excused or normalized. There MUST be consequences.
The DOJ under the Trump Administration had 4 years to indict Biden for something. If you do the crime, you do the time. Where there are multiple plums of smoke, there is definitely at least 1 fire.
Do you mean to imply that just because a Democrat is President, that all Republicans are totally immune from prosecution if they broke the law?
Prosecuting? They gave Hunter a slap on the back of his hand. We’ve had several whistleblowers testify to the fact that the DOJ purposely slow rolled the investigation so the time would run out on several of his crimes. Then the DOJ tried to slip in a get out of jail free card on crimes that Hunter is yet to be tried for.
https://nypost.com/2023/07/27/doj-prosecutors-agreed-to-not-prosecute-hunter-biden-for-past-crimes-but-changed-course-in-court/
Never said that, what I’m saying is just because a Democrat is President, that Democrats should not be immune from prosecution if they broke the law? That Democrats should not be using the DOJ and things like false dossiers paid for by Trump’s opponent in the 2016 election to get FISA warrants and such other dubious things to go after their opponent.
How closely did you read the indictment Keith?
Jonathon Turley whose opinions I respect says that this indictment doesn’t hold water.
https://news.yahoo.com/latest-trump-indictment-quite-chilling-154022521.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall
I watched that video… the link says yahoo news but the link is a Fox News podcast…
Turley is arguing that trump has a right to lie and that Smith has to prove Trumps state of mind.. is THAT where we are with our standards in the country? Sticking up for a presidential candidate’s right to lie and delude himself?
note to the law professor: Read the freaking indictment. It lays out a conspiracy to create confusion and then use that confusion as an excuse to overturn electoral votes in very plain terms. Even if trump actually believed there was actual voter fraud, his right to do ANYTHING about it was over once the courts threw out the challenges for lack of evidence and election was certified. Everything beyond THAT point was an conspiracy to defraud all of us.
also.. do yourself a favor and just stop watching anything from Fox /. Newsmax etc.. the one thing we learned in the dominion case is that right wing media is HUNGRY to say whatever right wing viewers want to hear, even if they know it’s untrue. Anyone linking to something from Brian killmeade is offering a self-disqualifying piece of information
The topic is the indictment of Donald Trump.
An examination and comparison of the possible factors involved in the indictment (media, political, and even judicial bias) are related to that topic.
I suspect that if a poll was conducted (and respondents were truthful), most respondents would believe that such bias may be a factor in Trump’s indictments. (And not just limited to his supporters.)
The D.C. Court where a Grand Jury made this ruling is very likely Democrat dominated. The judge overseeing the case was installed by Obama to whom the judge has also donated to. So trump has no chance in the D.C. Kangaroo Court system.
Everyone knows this will ultimately end up in the Supreme Court where I’m sure Trump likes his chances.
Yet another arraignment day for Donald Trump has arrived. Yepee!
People in this country are not tried by public opinion polls. Their guilt or innocence are determined by juries of their peers or judges. If Trump is innocent, he will acquitted. Those are the facts Jack as in Jack Smith.
Politicians are. The “court of public opinion”.
They’re going to round-up Obama and George W?
The decision to pursue a case is what’s being challenged – as David often does in regard to other cases.
Please tell me what federal laws you allege other former Presidents have broken. I bet you can’t Ron. If Obama violated federal laws, why didn’t the DOJ under the Trump Administration prosecute him. The answer is that Obama wasn’t a criminal.
Nixon?
George W (in regard to the IRAQ war)?
Biden (in regard to the elimination of student debt)?
All of them (in regard to enforcing federal drug or immigration laws)?
Detaining prisoners at GITMO (or allowing torture)?
Supplying weapons to Ukraine, without acknowledging that we’re at war with Russia?
Again, not a judgement on whether or not any of this is justified. (Nor do I actually know if any of this violates federal law.)
As far as what Trump did, it’s troubling (but again I don’t know if it rises to violation of federal law).
By the way, I forgot about Carter (who seems to have been on hospice care for about 10 years, at this point). He can serve as a “juror of one’s peers” for Trump, as well.
Actually about 5 1/2 months in hospice care. Source
(It was admittedly an exaggeration.)
In any case, Carter seems to have experienced a renewed respect, since he left office. Not quite at the level of Robb Davis, of course. 🙂
But they do have Carter’s obituary loaded-up and ready-to-go at a moment’s notice.
Regarding Trump, the two incidents which seem most questionable to me are as follows (paraphrased):
In regard to his conversation with Ukraine’s leader: “But we have a favor to ask . . .”
In regard to his conversation with an official in Georgia: “We need to find XX number of votes”. (Though I don’t really know what he meant by “finding” them.)
I actually sort of “admire” the fact that he was reportedly ready to go down to the capitol to join his “mob”, but was prevented from doing so by the Secret Service. Who knows if he would have attempted to control them, at that point.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66274979
How is it that I’m apparently the only person who finds this amusing?
Juicy, juicy, juicy.
I find it amusing that you find it amusing. How about that?
Given Trump’s current legal entanglements, his path towards the Republican nomination is not a sure thing. Now that is absolutely hilarious.
I think that voters will back him even more now that they see the banana republic witch hunts being orchestrated against Trump by the left. Every time an indictment comes forward against Trump his poll numbers jump.
The part I find amusing is that he’s almost within reach of winning the presidency again (at this point, at least).
So apparently, possibly being in prison does not “disqualify” someone from being elected. (And here I thought that prisoners weren’t even allowed to vote.)
If Trump wins a second time (some might claim that he already won twice), the reaction of some folks is going to be priceless.
I guess folks like drama/comedy (in regard to their support of Trump), which is the reason that DeSantis is now apparently “desperate enough” to debate a non-candidate:
https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/desantis-newsom-debate-fox-news-hannity-18277012.php?IPID=SFGate-HP-CP-Spotlight
He has a 15 month minefield to maneuver through. The reaction might be priceless, but the consequences are likely to be catastrophic.
You and Keith are emblematic of the problem here. There is a core of people that are going to vote for him no matter what because they believe in him. But that number is not sufficient to get him elected. There is another tier represented by Keith who really don’t like him, probably think he’s harmful, but if it comes to it will vote for Trump because they believe his policies are better and will excuse his conduct as maybe a more extreme side of whataboutism.
Then there is another tier of people, probably represented by you, who are another step removed, but think it will be funny to watch the consequences as though our system can somehow take another hit and keep on ticking.
I don’t know which group is more dangerous, but Trump is not a threat without both complicity and complacency.
We saw January 6, the dangerous thing is that whatever you can say about Trump, he learned from that lesson, and not the kind of learning a normal person would do.
No, you and others on the left are the problem here when you look the other way when fascist banana republic type tactics seem okay with you as long as it’s used against the party you don’t like.
You have this mostly correct, but I don’t see Trump as harmful. I see Biden’s and Democrat policies as harmful and hope the GOP can put a stop to many of them. And yes, Trump can be a cad at times, I’m willing to overlook that for the sake of the country.
The group that’s dangerous is the group that you seem to be a part of. The group that will go to any length to take down their opponent. The group that is okay with an opposition candidate funding a fake dossier full of lies in order to try to take down their opponent in an election. The group that then is okay with the DOJ and the FBI using this fake dossier to get FISA warrants and open an investigation into their opponent. The group that is okay with Trump being indicted over classified docs and overlooks the fact the Biden had a trove of classified docs stored in several locations even though he wasn’t President when he took them. The group that okay with impeaching Trump for quid pro quo over a phone call when there’s mounting evidence that Biden and his son both used Biden’s position to get million$ from China and Ukraine. How much is Joe Biden leveraged (being blackmailed) by China and Ukraine because of this? This just scratches the surface, but don’t act all righteous and patriotic when you turn your head and look the other way when this stuff happens just because the target is the opposition.
I think you proved my point in your response.
I’m pretty sure that I’m in the minority regarding my amusement. Most people seem to take this very seriously (on one side, or the other).
But the system actually worked, in regard to the election.
As far as “consequences” are concerned, I do know that we weren’t in a proxy war with Russia (or any other country) when Trump was president. And that there was at least an attempt to discourage illegal immigration. And that there wasn’t an attempt to forgive loans made to a (select) group of people, at everyone else’s expense.
There was also an attempt to control the riots sweeping the country at that time.
There were folks who were worried about the “consequences” the first time he got into office, to the point in which they were worried about a nuclear war. Other than the riot that Trump instigated, it seems to me that the “consequences” were overblown.
Plus, how else would we have seen photos of this guy:
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm12250280/
By the way, did no one think of this for a Halloween costume?
You may be in the minority in your amusement, but not your indifference.
That was weak…
That could be, regarding indifference.
Unlike local or even state politicians (to some degree), I’ve never really noticed a difference (in regard to the impact on my personal life, or those around me) in regard to who is occupying the White House.
I have, however, seen a lot of those same people become quite upset about it, regardless.
George Carlin has an interesting take on elections and politics:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPW8AaOuvDs
David, for years Joe Biden claimed he had no knowledge or participation with Hunter Biden’s business meetings. Then after last week’s revelations by Devon Archer about Joe Biden phone calls held during those meetings and Joe Biden actually sometimes meeting with Hunter’s business associates the story changed to Joe Biden only talked about the weather. If that’s the case, which no one believes, why did Joe Biden lie about it in the first place if he only talked weather. So David, you want to talk about complicity and complacency, maybe people backing Biden should look in the mirror.
I’ll be honest, I simply don’t care. You can’t look the other way at Trump’s corruption and vulgarity and then expect people to care at what might have been a nice political scandal in ordinary times pre-Trump. On top of that, you are attempting to defend Trump with this stuff. It’s a joke. The funniest part is you think you’re making a point here. I was hopeful that some of you would have wised up after January 6, but you haven’t. You are either too partisan or too complicit to get it. Either way, there is nothing you can say here that is going to get me to look at this differently.
I got cut off but here’s a link about the phone calls:
https://nypost.com/2023/07/31/democrat-claims-joe-biden-never-discussed-business-with-hunters-partners/
Thank you for being honest. Now you get it. Most Trump supporters see it as you can’t look the other way at Biden’s corruption while in turn going after Trump.
You thought that all of Trump could happen without there being collateral consequences?
I find the fact that Comer missed his own closed door committee hearing hilarious to no end. The House GOP dumpster fire continues to roar unabated.
Oversight Chairman James Comer missed his committee’s big Biden probe interview with Devon Archer. Now he’s coming up with a cover story.
At first, Comer’s office confirmed the Oversight Committee chairman did not participate in the July 31 closed-door interview of Devon Archer, a former business partner of Hunter Biden, in Washington, D.C. His spokesman said that “constituent meetings” in Kentucky rendered him unable to attend.
But, as he made the rounds in right-wing media to hype Archer’s testimony after the fact, Comer couldn’t help but make it seem like he was personally involved in interrogating the witness.
No way Trump gets a fair trial in D.C. and with the judge that got the case. This ends of in the Supreme Court. See you there…
The Supreme Court has steered clear of this stuff – wisely so. I don’t see that changing.
Do you really think Trump can get a fair trial in D.C.? Where something like 95% of the population votes Democrat. When the judge has already made a name for herself for being tough and issuing stiff sentences against Jan. 6 participants?
What are you talking about, SCOTUS got involved in the 2000 election issues. I feel they will see the unfairness of a biased jury and judge in D.C.
That’s not the legal standard for a fair trial. If it were, you would have cases all over thrown out.
If this doesn’t disqualify the appointed D.C. judge Tanya Chutkan from overseeing Trump’s case I don’t know what does:
On another note why isn’t my 8:11 comment posting?
No way Trump gets a fair trial is Florida and with the judge that got that case. In Florida, the defendant literally appointed that judge to the federal bench. She continues to refuse to recuse herself. Many observers believe that Special Counsel Jack Smith is waiting for the perfect moment to appeal her insane decisions so that the conservative appeals court can deliver another judicial smackdown to Judge Cannon.
It’s a bit silly. That’s why you have jury selection and voir dire. Not everyone is political and thus partisan. You simply find 12 jurors that aren’t and who can be fair. It’s like any other high profile trial. It’s why you have a larger number of peremptory juror strikes in high profile cases.
David, do you honestly think an unbiased jury can be found in D.C. which votes 95% Democrat?
That’s why you do jury selection and voir dire. You’re going to have the same problem everywhere in the country – a large number of people are going to feel strongly one way or the other and would have to be removed from the jury before being seated.
Even if you moved it to a place where the partisan split was closer to 50-50, you would have to remove the partisans.
Anyone who has been through a full jury selection process would have little concern about this issue. If his attorneys are competent, he’ll get a reasonable jury regardless of where the trial takes place. My guess is they may go through a larger jury pool than usual, for a variety of reasons, but the end product will reflect the strategies and interests of both sides. If his attorneys are competent.
Not to worry, Keith: David has a great deal of faith in the criminal justice system. He says so every day.
That’s probably the funniest thing you have ever said.
As Bryan Stevenson would say, it’s better to be rich and guilty than poor and innocent.
I’m not sure it’s true for someone as famous (or infamous) as Trump.
He seems to generate “strong” reactions, one way or another.
For sure, he’s more “interesting” than DeSantis.
This devolved into entertainment, a long time ago.
Then you’re nuts if you’re not sure it’s true. The only thing working against Trump is attorneys don’t want to work for him. He’ll be able to afford the best jury consultants in the world – if they’ll work for him that is.
Other factors working against Trump is Trump himself, determination on the part of prosecutors and some members of the public to get him, etc.
My understanding is that neither the prosecution nor defense gets an “unlimited number” of excusals. And that the prosecution (in this case) is paying “close attention” to jury selection, as well.
I don’t know the timing of any of this, but if he is acquitted before the election, you can be sure he’d try to use that (politically).
The part I don’t understand about Trump (as alluded to in your comment regarding “working for him”) is that he has a habit of turning his “friends into enemies” at the drop of a hat.
For that matter, I don’t understand his die-hard supporters.
This guy never should have run for president. He’s used to the business world, where money calls “all the shots” and provides more control.
My “guess” is that he has a pretty health ego (enough to run for, and win the presidency – at least once, depending upon “who” you talk to).
Like I said, for entertainment purposes only.
I suspect he’s a great, personable host if he doesn’t think you’re “disloyal” to him at any given moment. (If he invited “me” to Mar-a-Largo, I’d go – and probably have a grand old time. Though I wouldn’t tell him that I’d never vote for him.)
He was very entertaining (and likeable) on David Letterman’s show. (But I strongly suspect that “Dave” is disillusioned” with him as a president.)
Then again, we weren’t in a proxy war, when he was president. And there was at least an attempt to control illegal immigration.
Jonathon Turley who is much smarter than anyone who posts on here says no way trump can get a fair trial and jury in D.C.
Turley as usual is not completely thinking through the problem. The problem is that any jury pool is likely to have a huge number of partisans that have to be waded through. That’s really not going to be different in Virginia or Florida than DC.
You seem to continue to miss the point here. Let’s say it’s a 50-50 district, and most people feel strongly one way or another, that’s not better from the standpoint of jury selection because you need to find 15 people (with alternates) that can be fair and objective.
No David it’s you who is missing the point. If you have a case like this that’s very political in nature and statistically 95 out of 100 prospective jurors voted for the opposition it will be much easier for the prosecution to weed out any jurors who voted for the same party as Trump and much harder for the defense to seat impartial jurors.
I know I’ve read articles by you where you complained about the unfairness of juries being all or mostly white. How is this any different? There will be bias and as you often say unconscious bias at the very least. The trial needs to be moved.
The problem is that balance doesn’t solve the problem, you need neutrality. So wherever you locate, you will have the same problem.
Here are just 2 of Trump’s most infamous quotes.
Here’s what Trump says about the norms of being a famous man: “They let you do it. You can do anything. Grab ’em by the pussy.”
https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2016/10/7/13205842/trump-secret-recording-women
“You see the mob takes the Fifth,” Trump said during a 2016 rally in Iowa. “If you’re innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?”
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/08/trump-takes-the-fifth.html
At last count, Trump has taken the Fifth several hundred times. I think people have lost count as to the exact number of times.
Trump wrote:
Keep up the witch hunts and you’ll all get Trump elected for sure.
That’s a pretty serious misread of the data.
I agree that it will make it more likely that he gets the nomination. But that’s due to a polarization effect. Partisan Republicans are “rallying” to him. However, there is no evidence that this is going to make it more likely for him to win the general election. The polling shows about 60 to 70 percent believe that the charges are “serious” which suggests that they outstrip the number likely to support Biden in a general election.