I have so little faith in this SC that I feel, without any proof, that were this not so well publicized, the Conservatives on the court would side with him. Several of them lied to get on the Court. They're as despicable as Trump.
Lately I've been remembering yet again John Ehrlichman's memorable Watergate-era phrase, "twist slowly, twist slowly in the wind." (What I had to look up was who it was applied to: L. Patrick Gray, whose nomination to be FBI director was stalled because he wouldn't/couldn't answer questions about Watergate.) Earlier this year it applied to the pathetic Kevin McCarthy as he tried to get enough votes to become Speaker. Now I'm thinking about Chief Justice John Roberts, whose legacy is at the mercy of colleagues so despicable they make him look relatively moderate -- which of course he isn't.
Oh, he has contributed mightily to my assessment of him as a great disappointment. After all, Citizens United. What authentic thinker would EVER call that fair. It is as Republican a move to stay in control as any out there. Just because it's kind of mushy around the edges, just doesn't cut it for me. In the job I had for almost three decades dealing with attorneys as a court reporter, I was in the "back room" a number of times and that's where the real stuff happens. As one very powerful politician said at that time about a city Public Service Commission question about whether his constituents would like the decision or not, "Constituents don't know what's good for them." these things haunt you.
Well, that's a stupid thing to say where people can hear you, but the guy had a point. That's why so many elected officials get away with being lazy, mediocre, and/or corrupt.
Without doubt the Citizens United decision supported Republicans, esp. their big bankrollers, and seriously undermined the democratic process, but its roots go deeper than that. The Constitution doesn't provide for checks on economic power, and all attempts to curb it in any way are met with cries of "socialist! communist!" etc. Some of those attempts succeed anyway, but since the advent of the Reagan administration they've been continually on the defensive. I *hope* the tide is turning, and I *hope* it's not too late, but we lost more than four decades of opportunity to deal with climate change because of corporate interests, and three of those decades came before Citizens United.
They couldn't hear him. This was one of those times because of my job I was in what I call the back room and there was the attorney and the politician and me. They're not prone to telling the truth they really believe where their constituents can hear them. I also did federal grand juries where the government attorneys would trash the target every time he had to leave to the room to confer with his attorney. We all know lots happens in this world in the back room but it's chilling when you're actually there. Climate change is a frightening thing and I'm afraid we are too late for much of it.
That observation about constituents is true at least some of the time-- think of the millions of t-Rump worshipers who vote against their own best interests!
I'm currently reading Margaret Sullivan's _Newsroom Confidential,_ which combines her extensive experience as a journalist with a critique of journalistic practices and assumptions. (She was the "public editor" -- sort of an ombudsman -- at the NYTimes for several years, leaving fairly early in 2016.) She takes a hard look at the Times's apparent obsession with Hillary Clinton's emails and the various editors' reasons/excuses for it. Comey's pre-election bombshell coming at the tail end of that relentless harping on emails (to the near exclusion of any coverage of Trump's policy proposals or lack of same) felt fatal to me at the time, and reading Sullivan's book brings it all back. I dropped my NYT subscription not long after the 2016 election. The campaign coverage was the basic cause, and Bret Stephens's appointment was the last straw.
I'm not clear which "this stuff is not be major news" you're referencing. You gotta admit, there is a wide array of stuff that's major news these days, or should be, on the table.
Trump stuff. I thought we were talking about what you described as being "so well publicized"—as in "things that have been blasted repeatedly to the country, along with a little help from Trump himself who cannot keep his mouth shut no matter how much it would help him." You meant some other blasted thing?
You have recast my point into your point. I do consider this stuff major news. I believe I said had it not been so well publicized, and so on. We are on parallel courses on this or I'm sundowning. It seems lsome others got what my point was.
The Alito and Thomas are remarkably vile, Roberts is scum and the other three perjured themselves publicly. One group of scumbags will gladly throw allied scumbags under the bus for self preservation.
But on things that have been blasted repeatedly to the country, along with a little help from Trump himself who cannot keep his mouth shut no matter how much it would help him.
i really really hope when the SC rules against trump he will throw a massive temper tantrum and reveal the machinations he pulled to get "his" Justices seated
That’s so not out of the question. Trump will publicly turn on any one who opposes him, and all who benefited from his illegal support are at risk. And that coupled with the decompensation of a malignant narcissist ( which is about to go turbo) promises some satisfying entertainment.
One need only visit some other Substack forums to read a large, aggrieved segment of the left who complain noisily that those things are blasted repeatedly to the country, who gripe that the media report every word out of trump's mouth. As if it's not the press's duty to let the world know everything possible about that maniac, and what the large machine that props him up will be selling to profit him and them. Indeed, their constitutional duty.
I think the left's dislike of it is not that they're reporting every word out of his mouth but that they report this with deference, as if possibly it's true. It is what we had come to expect that they wouldn't add a slant to it every time. They are constantly using terms like "allegedly" for many things that have already been settled as fact.
Maybe Fox and the like, maybe in parts of the country I don't know use language like allegedly.. I never hear, see, or read any trump lie reported in New York City that is not clearly labeled a lie. But that's not what those subscribers are complaining about. They believe that close reporting on trump is free publicity, that it enhances his popularity. And he's so repulsive they simply do not wish to be informed.
I believe that's a huge part of it. It's also strangely regional as to what the gripes are about it. I'm in the deep South and kind of surprised people weren't as acquainted with Trump and who he is and how he is. There is so much not to like these days.
You are quite correct in saying that on the record of the case developed before the District Court and the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, there was no way that the former president could put an appealable case before the United States Supreme Court, especially on a matter involving potential trial testimony. There is nothing in the way of legal doctrine or legislative policy for the Supreme Court to decide. This is all run-of-the-mill stuff that the lower courts deal with on a daily basis that is unworthy of the Supreme Court's time and effort, especially when the Supreme Court has already spoken generally on the subject in the case of United States versus Nixon, which basically said that a president could be compelled to testify and provide evidence in the case in which he is a litigant. The Supreme Court is not going to get into deciding whether Donald Trump has a protectable reputational interest in preventing his lawyer from offering evidence against him that would be protectable communication with that lawyer, except for the fact that the communications sought to be protected contain evidence of the president's own criminality, and of his intent to further that criminality by using his lawyer as his 'beard'. Lawyers, you may have heard, are officially Officers of the Court in matters affecting the integrity of the judicial process. The duty of secrecy owed by a lawyer to his client is of lesser concern to the legal system than the lawyer fulfilling his duty of candor to the court. When the integrity of the legal system itself is at stake, the lawyers and the courts are seen as one. Hence, we have what is known as the fraud-crime exception to a lawyer's duty to protect his client's secrets at all costs. That duty to disclose a client's intent to commit fraud or a crime is imposed by operation of the law; there is nothing consensual about it, and the appearance of that exception occurs so infrequently in legal practice before the courts, that the obligation of the lawyer to disclose his client's criminal intent is a fundamental understanding appertaining to the lawyer-client relationship. That said, the physical evidence that is now in the possession of the District Court that memorializes Trump's criminal intent must indeed be damning. Attorney Corcoran could be justly criticized for remaining as Donald Trump's lawyer on the case; and that he should have filed a motion with the District Court to be allowed to resign as Trump's attorney of record. Every time I represented a criminal defendant at the conclusion of his criminal case, I would file a motion with the requisite court to be relieved of any further obligation with regard to that client's representation. But each jurisdiction generally does it its own particular way.
On occasion I've had the obligation to represent someone on his appeal of his criminal conviction who wanted me to argue falsely. And in the brief that I prepared on that client's behalf, I made it absolutely clear that I was not associating myself with that client's spurious claims. In several of the cases, I was compelled by the canons of ethics to file a brief that stated that there were no appealable issues in the case, and that I had carefully scrutinized every material fact and application of the rule of law to assure myself that I had left no stone unturned. Those are tough briefs to write, because I was acting more in the capacity of an Inspector General, then a client's advocate. But even when a client has been brought to justice fully and completely within the bounds of the law, and the rules of criminal procedure, they are entitled to a fair and unbiased examination of the case, if the circumstances so require. That's the kind of 'quality control' that a judicial system is ethically obligated to exercise, and it is an obligation that a lawyer does not undertake lightly. In this sense, it requires the lawyer to act as the client's advocate, while at the same time, immediately following, the lawyer moves to the other side of the case to show what the prosecution offered as evidence, and why that evidence is conclusive on the issue of the client's guilt as to that count in the formal indictment. It is a back-and-forth exercise of raising potential issues, and then resolving that issue with the proof that was offered at trial. At the end of the day, the system works much as a mathematical proof, and it does minimize the potential transfer. I remember having one case in which the prosecutor admitted that there had been some sort of minor error in the sentencing of this particular client, and thereafter there was a resentencing to conform with the statutory requirements. It was a small win, but that was what I had been charged with finding. And I really didn't have to do anything; it was the prosecutor who volunteered that an error had been committed. So much the better for it.
I have no doubt that Mr. Corcoran's testimony before the grand jury will be dispositive insofar as he is able to answer any question the grand jury or prosecutors may have regarding the conduct of the former president with regard to his intent to violate the law. Corcoran's testimony may not add very much to what is already on the record, but that record, in and of itself, is undoubtedly legally sufficient to bring the former president to trial, and to send him to jail for as long as the law allows. The prosecutor is a living nothing to chance; and if overkill is deemed necessary, I'm all for it.
Most lawyers I have known and worked with our honest, hard-working, and ethical; those who do not wish to fulfill those responsibilities are usually quick to seek out other career opportunities.
Thank you once again, Arthur for your crystal clear explanation of this issue. I'm encouraged that the Orange One will, indeed, face justice and get to spend some quality time behind bars.
Thanks for this clear explication of intricate matters. Interesting to see what lawyers do to ensure fairness and correctness. Far more thoroughgoing than I ever knew. SPELLCHECK went rather wild. Corrected text now.
A housekeeping issue is what Magas call hoarding top secret documents, lying about it, claiming their "mine," bragging about them and showing them off to who knows who, and refusing to give them back to the government.
He lost every appeal to the Supreme Court after the 2020 election. The 6 conservatives owe their allegiance to the Federalist Society, not to the feckless, uncultured, uncouth, moronic orange monster mobster
Thanks for staying on this story. Your succinct explanations are helpful for me. It's hard to keep up with all the legalese and the appeals and the courts and the.........all of it! Thanks again, and don't stop, please!?
I'm in the camp that believes he is holding his fire (after having lost every appeal to SCOTUS so far) until he gets convicted of one or more of the crimes he has committed. He then thinks that either a) his justices will save him or b) he will have successfully stolen the 2024 election and be able to pardon himself or c) Biden will pardon him to end the long national nightmare. I think he's deluded. If he is finally indicted he will go to trial and absent a MAGA or two on the jury, he will be convicted. Then it's simply a question of house arrest at Mierdolardo or in the gilded apartment in Trump Tower. He will never see the inside of a prison cell.
Your last sentence in particular is, IMHO, 100% correct. I can hardly believe there are people who think t-Rump will actually spend time behind bars! But....uh.... he can't be president if he's under house arrest....or can he???
If he manages to ascend to the throne once again, he will immediately pardon himself, likely the day after the election. So, no prison for sure. I think the real problem with prison is the Secret Service. Why should his bodyguards be forced to live behind bars with him? And they sure as hell aren't going to put him in any prison, even Club Fed, without SS protection.
*Rump may indeed try to pardon himself, but it won’ be until after noon on Jan. 20, 2025. He has no power until then. I also doubt he will ever see the inside of a jail cell, unfortunately.
As below, this is Trump we are talking about. He will definitely pardon himself the day after the election (do you think rules apply to him????). If not election night if he is in the lead.
I find the idea of Secret Service agents accompanying a crook to prison is absurd. Should he go to the jug (unlikely, but possible) there are *already* guards in there.
Well, please. How would you like to join the Secret Service and protect your guy from other criminals? Even an 8-hour shift for an innocent person would be odious
Don't all ex-Presidents get lifetime Secret Service protection? Maybe that would end if an ex-prez is convicted and sentenced to prison. BUT: t-Rump will never go to prison, so this is a non-problem. House arrest? Maybe-- a very remote possibility. But all this hinges on a conviction, which I think is a liberal fantasy.
Not only do all former presidents get lifetime security details, but their widows do, as well. I remember when I rented a house at the Cape one summer and Lady Bird Johnson was next door -- with the agents. They were not averse to grousing that, while being at the Cape was pleasant, they felt certain no one wished to harm a (then) 86-year-old woman, ergo they didn't really need to be there
I find it interesting that this decision kind of shields Cocoran from Trump's ire. I mean "I was forced to testify." Maybe Corcoran was happy to be "forced" to testify because he knows the nature of the classified information. Maybe he actually has some love for his country. Do any of us believe that all
You're not the only one and actually, that's just as much because some turned up in Pence's possession and Biden's. This should be a wake-up call, and actually I think it is, that this is not as isolated as we once thought.
It might be also that those were nine justices who a while back, wrote that "No one is above the law' in respect to some judicial matter that Trump was appealing, and that is why Trump knows that to appeal a ruling backed by two courts is not going to go anywhere.
He's been losing case appeals for quite some time now, and his lawyers are being hung out to dry-nothing stops the courts from ruling against him-not his status as a former POTUS, a Republican or even as an appellant. He is now facing the headwinds of a entire judicial system that will not be swayed by his whining and crying about how unfair all of this is, and 'it's a witch hunt!"
Trump is now an ordinary citizen without any protection from prosecution and he's feeling it hard. His lawyers are taking the sword for him and they're falling victim to the fallacy that he had a special aura of protection against this kind of prosecution. He doesn't. Not even the famed and sacred "client/attorney privilege" is protecting them. It doesn't matter in some cases.
Michael Cohen was right when he warned any lawyer to not represent Trump because in the end, Trump will throw them to the wolves quite willingly and without any hesitation.
Maybe now they're learning that Cohen was right all along. They're caught in the trap of defending themselves on the behalf of a client who was not worthy of representation.
Al Capone, after a lifetime of organized racketeering and murder(“It’s only business, Michael “), was ultimately tried and convicted of income tax evasion.
If there’s a lesson here, it’s that the numbers don’t lie. And all the legal preparation, which might had appeared overly cautious, will have an ultimate payoff.
Then the question remains what becomes of an unhinged mob of angry (mostly), white people.
When tRump is Al Caponed, he will immediately send out the shrill of his dog whistle. We will need steel barriers around every government institution, every black church, every
Well, they ruin the streetscape and impede pedestrian traffic, but so do construction sidewalk sheds. And hospitals everywhere that offer air ambulance services have more frequent chopper racket.
[Ugh—sorry for the glitch. I should never draft online.] …
Fine by me. You certainly should be spared the proximity. I started with an Aleutian island, but we sent our last exiles north of the Arctic Circle, and on second thought I realized the Aleutians might be too agreeable. The Atlantic's challenge is getting enough distance. The far south Atlantic? But it would be just like them to try to stir up the Falklands. 'Tis a quandary.
(Still in awe of your arrows, brother. Not a one misses the mark)
Can't decide which of Trump's legal teams is worse, Trump's trial attorneys or his appellate attorneys.
Do know well Trump treats his legal teams as hired help. No better or worse than a server or caddie at Mar-a-Lago. How is it his attorneys have yet to figure that out?
I have so little faith in this SC that I feel, without any proof, that were this not so well publicized, the Conservatives on the court would side with him. Several of them lied to get on the Court. They're as despicable as Trump.
Lately I've been remembering yet again John Ehrlichman's memorable Watergate-era phrase, "twist slowly, twist slowly in the wind." (What I had to look up was who it was applied to: L. Patrick Gray, whose nomination to be FBI director was stalled because he wouldn't/couldn't answer questions about Watergate.) Earlier this year it applied to the pathetic Kevin McCarthy as he tried to get enough votes to become Speaker. Now I'm thinking about Chief Justice John Roberts, whose legacy is at the mercy of colleagues so despicable they make him look relatively moderate -- which of course he isn't.
Oh, he has contributed mightily to my assessment of him as a great disappointment. After all, Citizens United. What authentic thinker would EVER call that fair. It is as Republican a move to stay in control as any out there. Just because it's kind of mushy around the edges, just doesn't cut it for me. In the job I had for almost three decades dealing with attorneys as a court reporter, I was in the "back room" a number of times and that's where the real stuff happens. As one very powerful politician said at that time about a city Public Service Commission question about whether his constituents would like the decision or not, "Constituents don't know what's good for them." these things haunt you.
Well, that's a stupid thing to say where people can hear you, but the guy had a point. That's why so many elected officials get away with being lazy, mediocre, and/or corrupt.
Without doubt the Citizens United decision supported Republicans, esp. their big bankrollers, and seriously undermined the democratic process, but its roots go deeper than that. The Constitution doesn't provide for checks on economic power, and all attempts to curb it in any way are met with cries of "socialist! communist!" etc. Some of those attempts succeed anyway, but since the advent of the Reagan administration they've been continually on the defensive. I *hope* the tide is turning, and I *hope* it's not too late, but we lost more than four decades of opportunity to deal with climate change because of corporate interests, and three of those decades came before Citizens United.
They couldn't hear him. This was one of those times because of my job I was in what I call the back room and there was the attorney and the politician and me. They're not prone to telling the truth they really believe where their constituents can hear them. I also did federal grand juries where the government attorneys would trash the target every time he had to leave to the room to confer with his attorney. We all know lots happens in this world in the back room but it's chilling when you're actually there. Climate change is a frightening thing and I'm afraid we are too late for much of it.
That observation about constituents is true at least some of the time-- think of the millions of t-Rump worshipers who vote against their own best interests!
Also non-Trump fans who were suckered by James Comey and their own misogyny.
About now I hope Comey realizes he is the one responsible for Hillary's falling numbers going into the election. Trying to be just too cute.
I'm currently reading Margaret Sullivan's _Newsroom Confidential,_ which combines her extensive experience as a journalist with a critique of journalistic practices and assumptions. (She was the "public editor" -- sort of an ombudsman -- at the NYTimes for several years, leaving fairly early in 2016.) She takes a hard look at the Times's apparent obsession with Hillary Clinton's emails and the various editors' reasons/excuses for it. Comey's pre-election bombshell coming at the tail end of that relentless harping on emails (to the near exclusion of any coverage of Trump's policy proposals or lack of same) felt fatal to me at the time, and reading Sullivan's book brings it all back. I dropped my NYT subscription not long after the 2016 election. The campaign coverage was the basic cause, and Bret Stephens's appointment was the last straw.
Am I missing eomething? How in the world could this stuff not be major news?
I'm not clear which "this stuff is not be major news" you're referencing. You gotta admit, there is a wide array of stuff that's major news these days, or should be, on the table.
Trump stuff. I thought we were talking about what you described as being "so well publicized"—as in "things that have been blasted repeatedly to the country, along with a little help from Trump himself who cannot keep his mouth shut no matter how much it would help him." You meant some other blasted thing?
You have recast my point into your point. I do consider this stuff major news. I believe I said had it not been so well publicized, and so on. We are on parallel courses on this or I'm sundowning. It seems lsome others got what my point was.
The two threads have got longer and maybe confusing.
I agree with that.
I agree.
He's caught tighter and tighter in the tangled web he's been weaving. I just hope there's no escape.
Many thanks for blowing the bullshit off the ever evolving multiple mazes of Trump's madness.
It's exhausting just to read, much less research, the venal scrambling low life bullshit of it all.
Very good on you for the dedication that many of us very much rely on to such a repulsive, but very real current part of our lives. Thanks.
I like that, "blowing the bullshit off." What a great comment.
SCOTUS has consistently treated trump's appeals as if it knows its self-preservation depends on not favoring him.
The Alito and Thomas are remarkably vile, Roberts is scum and the other three perjured themselves publicly. One group of scumbags will gladly throw allied scumbags under the bus for self preservation.
I couldn't agree with you more. And throw in the equally vile Ginni Thomas. Two ugly peas in a wrinkled pod.
But on things that have been blasted repeatedly to the country, along with a little help from Trump himself who cannot keep his mouth shut no matter how much it would help him.
i really really hope when the SC rules against trump he will throw a massive temper tantrum and reveal the machinations he pulled to get "his" Justices seated
That Would Be SO Cool!!!!
That’s so not out of the question. Trump will publicly turn on any one who opposes him, and all who benefited from his illegal support are at risk. And that coupled with the decompensation of a malignant narcissist ( which is about to go turbo) promises some satisfying entertainment.
One need only visit some other Substack forums to read a large, aggrieved segment of the left who complain noisily that those things are blasted repeatedly to the country, who gripe that the media report every word out of trump's mouth. As if it's not the press's duty to let the world know everything possible about that maniac, and what the large machine that props him up will be selling to profit him and them. Indeed, their constitutional duty.
I think the left's dislike of it is not that they're reporting every word out of his mouth but that they report this with deference, as if possibly it's true. It is what we had come to expect that they wouldn't add a slant to it every time. They are constantly using terms like "allegedly" for many things that have already been settled as fact.
Maybe Fox and the like, maybe in parts of the country I don't know use language like allegedly.. I never hear, see, or read any trump lie reported in New York City that is not clearly labeled a lie. But that's not what those subscribers are complaining about. They believe that close reporting on trump is free publicity, that it enhances his popularity. And he's so repulsive they simply do not wish to be informed.
I believe that's a huge part of it. It's also strangely regional as to what the gripes are about it. I'm in the deep South and kind of surprised people weren't as acquainted with Trump and who he is and how he is. There is so much not to like these days.
You are quite correct in saying that on the record of the case developed before the District Court and the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, there was no way that the former president could put an appealable case before the United States Supreme Court, especially on a matter involving potential trial testimony. There is nothing in the way of legal doctrine or legislative policy for the Supreme Court to decide. This is all run-of-the-mill stuff that the lower courts deal with on a daily basis that is unworthy of the Supreme Court's time and effort, especially when the Supreme Court has already spoken generally on the subject in the case of United States versus Nixon, which basically said that a president could be compelled to testify and provide evidence in the case in which he is a litigant. The Supreme Court is not going to get into deciding whether Donald Trump has a protectable reputational interest in preventing his lawyer from offering evidence against him that would be protectable communication with that lawyer, except for the fact that the communications sought to be protected contain evidence of the president's own criminality, and of his intent to further that criminality by using his lawyer as his 'beard'. Lawyers, you may have heard, are officially Officers of the Court in matters affecting the integrity of the judicial process. The duty of secrecy owed by a lawyer to his client is of lesser concern to the legal system than the lawyer fulfilling his duty of candor to the court. When the integrity of the legal system itself is at stake, the lawyers and the courts are seen as one. Hence, we have what is known as the fraud-crime exception to a lawyer's duty to protect his client's secrets at all costs. That duty to disclose a client's intent to commit fraud or a crime is imposed by operation of the law; there is nothing consensual about it, and the appearance of that exception occurs so infrequently in legal practice before the courts, that the obligation of the lawyer to disclose his client's criminal intent is a fundamental understanding appertaining to the lawyer-client relationship. That said, the physical evidence that is now in the possession of the District Court that memorializes Trump's criminal intent must indeed be damning. Attorney Corcoran could be justly criticized for remaining as Donald Trump's lawyer on the case; and that he should have filed a motion with the District Court to be allowed to resign as Trump's attorney of record. Every time I represented a criminal defendant at the conclusion of his criminal case, I would file a motion with the requisite court to be relieved of any further obligation with regard to that client's representation. But each jurisdiction generally does it its own particular way.
On occasion I've had the obligation to represent someone on his appeal of his criminal conviction who wanted me to argue falsely. And in the brief that I prepared on that client's behalf, I made it absolutely clear that I was not associating myself with that client's spurious claims. In several of the cases, I was compelled by the canons of ethics to file a brief that stated that there were no appealable issues in the case, and that I had carefully scrutinized every material fact and application of the rule of law to assure myself that I had left no stone unturned. Those are tough briefs to write, because I was acting more in the capacity of an Inspector General, then a client's advocate. But even when a client has been brought to justice fully and completely within the bounds of the law, and the rules of criminal procedure, they are entitled to a fair and unbiased examination of the case, if the circumstances so require. That's the kind of 'quality control' that a judicial system is ethically obligated to exercise, and it is an obligation that a lawyer does not undertake lightly. In this sense, it requires the lawyer to act as the client's advocate, while at the same time, immediately following, the lawyer moves to the other side of the case to show what the prosecution offered as evidence, and why that evidence is conclusive on the issue of the client's guilt as to that count in the formal indictment. It is a back-and-forth exercise of raising potential issues, and then resolving that issue with the proof that was offered at trial. At the end of the day, the system works much as a mathematical proof, and it does minimize the potential transfer. I remember having one case in which the prosecutor admitted that there had been some sort of minor error in the sentencing of this particular client, and thereafter there was a resentencing to conform with the statutory requirements. It was a small win, but that was what I had been charged with finding. And I really didn't have to do anything; it was the prosecutor who volunteered that an error had been committed. So much the better for it.
I have no doubt that Mr. Corcoran's testimony before the grand jury will be dispositive insofar as he is able to answer any question the grand jury or prosecutors may have regarding the conduct of the former president with regard to his intent to violate the law. Corcoran's testimony may not add very much to what is already on the record, but that record, in and of itself, is undoubtedly legally sufficient to bring the former president to trial, and to send him to jail for as long as the law allows. The prosecutor is a living nothing to chance; and if overkill is deemed necessary, I'm all for it.
thank you, AS, Esq. for this post.
i always look forward to your helpful inside view of complex judicial workings.
The supreme court has no respect for precedent or the truth. Yet they won’t help trump. They will turn on their evil confederate in a heart beat.
Tô me, the most important point you make is: “…the integrity of the legal system itself is at stake.”
Most lawyers I have known and worked with our honest, hard-working, and ethical; those who do not wish to fulfill those responsibilities are usually quick to seek out other career opportunities.
Thank you once again, Arthur for your crystal clear explanation of this issue. I'm encouraged that the Orange One will, indeed, face justice and get to spend some quality time behind bars.
Thanks for this clear explication of intricate matters. Interesting to see what lawyers do to ensure fairness and correctness. Far more thoroughgoing than I ever knew. SPELLCHECK went rather wild. Corrected text now.
Arthur, I always learn so much from you. Thank you for sharing your knowledge, experience, logic and clarity.
A housekeeping issue is what Magas call hoarding top secret documents, lying about it, claiming their "mine," bragging about them and showing them off to who knows who, and refusing to give them back to the government.
Love the hed : “Another spectacular Trump legal backfire”. So much winning! to quote the asshat who said that.
Another asshat narcissist, in fact.
He is beyond narcissism. He's a raving lunatic.
He lost every appeal to the Supreme Court after the 2020 election. The 6 conservatives owe their allegiance to the Federalist Society, not to the feckless, uncultured, uncouth, moronic orange monster mobster
Thanks for staying on this story. Your succinct explanations are helpful for me. It's hard to keep up with all the legalese and the appeals and the courts and the.........all of it! Thanks again, and don't stop, please!?
I'm in the camp that believes he is holding his fire (after having lost every appeal to SCOTUS so far) until he gets convicted of one or more of the crimes he has committed. He then thinks that either a) his justices will save him or b) he will have successfully stolen the 2024 election and be able to pardon himself or c) Biden will pardon him to end the long national nightmare. I think he's deluded. If he is finally indicted he will go to trial and absent a MAGA or two on the jury, he will be convicted. Then it's simply a question of house arrest at Mierdolardo or in the gilded apartment in Trump Tower. He will never see the inside of a prison cell.
Your last sentence in particular is, IMHO, 100% correct. I can hardly believe there are people who think t-Rump will actually spend time behind bars! But....uh.... he can't be president if he's under house arrest....or can he???
If he manages to ascend to the throne once again, he will immediately pardon himself, likely the day after the election. So, no prison for sure. I think the real problem with prison is the Secret Service. Why should his bodyguards be forced to live behind bars with him? And they sure as hell aren't going to put him in any prison, even Club Fed, without SS protection.
He couldn’t pardon himself the day after the election. Biden would still be President. He would have to wait until he’s sworn in on January 20.
Oh please, this is Trump we are talking about. Of course he will pardon himself the day after the election, if not election night if he is leading.
*Rump may indeed try to pardon himself, but it won’ be until after noon on Jan. 20, 2025. He has no power until then. I also doubt he will ever see the inside of a jail cell, unfortunately.
As below, this is Trump we are talking about. He will definitely pardon himself the day after the election (do you think rules apply to him????). If not election night if he is in the lead.
I find the idea of Secret Service agents accompanying a crook to prison is absurd. Should he go to the jug (unlikely, but possible) there are *already* guards in there.
Three eight-hour or four six-hour rotating shifts would be manageable. The agents wouldn't have to be there 24/7; the prisoner would.
Well, please. How would you like to join the Secret Service and protect your guy from other criminals? Even an 8-hour shift for an innocent person would be odious
Don't all ex-Presidents get lifetime Secret Service protection? Maybe that would end if an ex-prez is convicted and sentenced to prison. BUT: t-Rump will never go to prison, so this is a non-problem. House arrest? Maybe-- a very remote possibility. But all this hinges on a conviction, which I think is a liberal fantasy.
Not only do all former presidents get lifetime security details, but their widows do, as well. I remember when I rented a house at the Cape one summer and Lady Bird Johnson was next door -- with the agents. They were not averse to grousing that, while being at the Cape was pleasant, they felt certain no one wished to harm a (then) 86-year-old woman, ergo they didn't really need to be there
So, are you saying that t-Rump could NOT pardon himself, even if he were to be re-elected? (which all the gods forbid!)
I don't think The Rump knows this! If he were to win and grant himself a pardon, what would happen? Who or what could un-do it? Invalidate it?
or he believes d) his magates will start Civil War II and free him.
I find it interesting that this decision kind of shields Cocoran from Trump's ire. I mean "I was forced to testify." Maybe Corcoran was happy to be "forced" to testify because he knows the nature of the classified information. Maybe he actually has some love for his country. Do any of us believe that all
of the documents were found?
Just going by the odds, I believe there's still documents scattered all over the place.
yes.
there were, what, 40 empty folders?
You're not the only one and actually, that's just as much because some turned up in Pence's possession and Biden's. This should be a wake-up call, and actually I think it is, that this is not as isolated as we once thought.
Maybe but Trump seems to indicate you should lie if necessary on his behalf.
Since Trump lies constantly, he assumes everyone else does also.
Precisely.
Seems to indicate? Trump demands that everyone around him lie for him.
It might be also that those were nine justices who a while back, wrote that "No one is above the law' in respect to some judicial matter that Trump was appealing, and that is why Trump knows that to appeal a ruling backed by two courts is not going to go anywhere.
He's been losing case appeals for quite some time now, and his lawyers are being hung out to dry-nothing stops the courts from ruling against him-not his status as a former POTUS, a Republican or even as an appellant. He is now facing the headwinds of a entire judicial system that will not be swayed by his whining and crying about how unfair all of this is, and 'it's a witch hunt!"
Trump is now an ordinary citizen without any protection from prosecution and he's feeling it hard. His lawyers are taking the sword for him and they're falling victim to the fallacy that he had a special aura of protection against this kind of prosecution. He doesn't. Not even the famed and sacred "client/attorney privilege" is protecting them. It doesn't matter in some cases.
Michael Cohen was right when he warned any lawyer to not represent Trump because in the end, Trump will throw them to the wolves quite willingly and without any hesitation.
Maybe now they're learning that Cohen was right all along. They're caught in the trap of defending themselves on the behalf of a client who was not worthy of representation.
Al Capone, after a lifetime of organized racketeering and murder(“It’s only business, Michael “), was ultimately tried and convicted of income tax evasion.
If there’s a lesson here, it’s that the numbers don’t lie. And all the legal preparation, which might had appeared overly cautious, will have an ultimate payoff.
Then the question remains what becomes of an unhinged mob of angry (mostly), white people.
When tRump is Al Caponed, he will immediately send out the shrill of his dog whistle. We will need steel barriers around every government institution, every black church, every
...
When you've lived with such security for a few years, you find the thing you *never* get used to is the oppressive racket the police helicopters make.
Oh!
Well, they ruin the streetscape and impede pedestrian traffic, but so do construction sidewalk sheds. And hospitals everywhere that offer air ambulance services have more frequent chopper racket.
Maybe we can cede them a distant Pacific island all their own if they'll just stay there.
considering that sea levels are rising, I'd say that is an excellent idea. Maybe one of chinas' manufactured islands.
Something to be said for climate change? If the Chinese island is built to the same standards as their exports of recent years, that's good too.
Please don't, we're already experiencing enough pollutants out this way. May I suggest a much colder and harsher Atlantic solution. ;-)
[Ugh—sorry for the glitch. I should never draft online.] …
Fine by me. You certainly should be spared the proximity. I started with an Aleutian island, but we sent our last exiles north of the Arctic Circle, and on second thought I realized the Aleutians might be too agreeable. The Atlantic's challenge is getting enough distance. The far south Atlantic? But it would be just like them to try to stir up the Falklands. 'Tis a quandary.
Elba.
Siberia
(Still in awe of your arrows, brother. Not a one misses the mark)
Can't decide which of Trump's legal teams is worse, Trump's trial attorneys or his appellate attorneys.
Do know well Trump treats his legal teams as hired help. No better or worse than a server or caddie at Mar-a-Lago. How is it his attorneys have yet to figure that out?
How many attorneys has he gone through? Did he pay them when the invoices arrived?
Forget whatever this SC might or might do. What I want to know is how many times Corcoran uttered the word “fifth?
If so, the prosecutors will promise not to prosecute him if he testifies truthfully.
Who’s on First?