While I’d love to see Trump in prison, the best case scenario here is a plea agreement that includes an agreement banning him from ever holding a security clearance again. Neuter the worthless jackass.
FBI Search and Seizure at Trump's Mar-A-Lago Residence, August 8, 2022, Case Dismissed July 15, 2024
Or SHE planted the documents! She’s been an undercover Deep State mole all this time!
Not sure how that would neuter him. Do you mean the GOP would never nominate a presidential candidate without a security clearance? They don’t give a shit. “Clearances are for liberals.”
Just FYI, “POTUS” is the more typical acronym for “President of the United States.”
Agree with @Atamasama
The Republican Senate was Trump’s “Get Out Of Jail Free Card.” He will quite likely not be so fortunate the next time he is taken to task for his actions.
I am nowhere near ready to read the tea leaves and take a position on where this goes, but the above … that’s highly likely.
It would effectively end his presidential ambitions. Imagine a debate with Nikki Haley or DeSantis. You cannot be president without a security clearance.
True, but PUSA has an ironic, trump-ish ring to it… gives ya somethin’ to grab onto, don’tcha know.
I’m so used to PUSA, being from the Seattle area.
I feel like the greater issue will end up being that materials responsive to the subpoena that Habba was dealing with will, likely, be found in the documents that were brought back to FBI HQ. I have to imagine that there’s some way for Letitia James to have submitted a request to the filter team to look for items that were relevant to her subpoena.
If Habba searched as thoroughly as she says and, somehow, there’s double the amount of material as what she handed over that’s clearly pertinent to the subpoena - that woman’s gonna be in the deep doo-doo.
Which would explain why he can’t remember ever seeing her.
Effectively preventing him from running for the office of President again?
I’m in.
Says who? This is the party of “… but what if we didn’t?” I can totally imagine that debate, with Trump talking about how his wonderful relationships with foreign leaders make security clearances beside the point.
Don’t you just get access to classified information if you are elected president? You don’t have to “qualify” for it or apply or get an actual clearance issued, which is obviously one of the failings in our system that allowed any of this to happen in the first place.
And Barr, his pet AG at the time who couldn’t see any obstruction from Trump in the Russia investigation.
The man who seems to making an effort to change his stripes since then.
Crimes and impeachments
Impeachments for free
IANAL but, from my experience as a person who reads the news every day, is that judges are usually inclined to give a petitioner the benefit of the doubt and stop the process or otherwise take whatever steps are necessary to ensure the least possible harm, so that they can more properly examine the subject.
For example, let’s say that someone says that a new law is unconstitutional. Often, the judge will immediately suspend the law - making no decision on the merits of the argument - and ask the two sides to file briefs so that she can decide if the matter is sufficiently debatable to merit a continuation of the suspension. If she thinks the case will lose then the suspension will be dropped quickly enough, but the case will proceed forward. If the case is less clear or will likely win then the suspension will stay in place. But, in the moment, before any argument has been made by anyone, the suspension preserves the status quo and that gives her time to review the subject.
Likewise, here, the judge immediately warns that she could end up choosing to appoint a special master and so the FBI should hold off on reviewing the materials. Meanwhile, she calls for briefs on the matter, so she can decide whether she actually should do that.
Emergency filings would be pointless if judges needed to make informed decisions. The damage would often already be done by the time you got to that point. It makes sense that the judge’s first act is simply to take whatever measure she can to delay harm, while reviewing the merits of the filing.
It’s an interesting question. If the clearance is automatic, then Trump would be barred from taking office since he agreed to the plea deal.
Two other Trump lawyers, Evan Corcoran and Christina Bobb, are likely to be either witnesses or targets in the FBI’s case. Bobb was the one who signed the declaration that they had given back all the classified documents in June.
(gift link)
In normal circumstances, prosecutors seeking evidence about an investigative target cannot subpoena that target’s defense lawyers and force them to testify or turn over documents about their client. Under attorney-client privilege, the confidentiality of such discussions and work is protected.
That privilege is meant to protect the rights of people who are in trouble over a past and already completed potential offense. People need to be able to talk candidly with their lawyers about what happened to understand their options. That would be impossible if whatever people admitted to their lawyers could be used against them as evidence in court.
But there is an exception. When attorney-client communications were part of continuing or future crimes, the privilege does not apply. If judges think there is sufficient evidence to trigger this “crime-fraud exception,” they will uphold a subpoena forcing the defense lawyers to provide evidence about what they and their clients said to each other.
There is another potential legal hurdle. If there is reason to believe that Mr. Corcoran, Ms. Bobb or both are at risk themselves of being charged with crimes like obstruction or lying to federal investigators, they would have a Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination.
As a result, neither could likely be compelled to testify before a grand jury about their interactions with Mr. Trump without a grant of immunity from prosecution at a minimum.
Alternatively, if prosecutors believe they already have enough evidence to charge them with crimes like obstruction or making false statements, the government could try to negotiate guilty pleas that include agreements to cooperate in return for leniency.
I don’t think that’s the way it would work. Or at least it would be something the courts would have to interpret, and, no matter my personal feelings about the individual, POTUS automatically needs to have clearance by virtue of the office and should an election turn out that way, some kind of back door barring of a duly elected individual to high office would be so undemocratic as to defeat the purpose.
That said, I think any violation of any such agreement should trigger automatic imprisonment, so it’ll be back to the courts again on whether or not a sitting POTUS can pardon himself. And there’s the tricky bit about how any prison sentence would work in concert with the needs of the office in any event.
Yes, before I saw your post I made a post in the Garland pit thread comparing Garland to an Aikido master in not taking aggressive action but using Trump’s aggression as an opportunity to take him down.