That’s it. Thanks.
FBI Search and Seizure at Trump's Mar-A-Lago Residence, August 8, 2022, Case Dismissed July 15, 2024
It is a very strong case and very high profile. But in this instance, I think a plea offer could be made. It will be reasonable, within the treatment of others similarly situated, but it won’t be one Trump will take, because I can’t see Smith making an offer that doesn’t include some prison time.
But… maybe. If Smith believes Cannon will fuck his case somehow, he might be willing to make a no-prison offer just to get a few felony convictions. Better than a not guilty verdict. Trump may or may not take such an offer.
Given that Trump is currently demanding apologies and that DOJ give him back “his” documents, though, probably not.
That offer has likely already been made and remains open. Trump is terrified of Nauta flipping for a plea deal. He’s hardly let Nauta out of his sight. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn Trump sleeps in the same room with him.
Smith could have no better witness for what Trump was doing after he left the White House than Waltine Nauta.
I don’t know how it works, but I can’t imagine a plea in this case that doesn’t also resolve anything else Jack is investigating (eg, Jan 6). Can that happen in a plea in “this” case?
If I’m Trump, it’s not that great to plead out here (unless it’s a fantastic deal) and then just get popped with another indictment.
No. I mean, it can. But they are two entirely separate cases, filed (or will be filed, if Smith decides to indict on January 6th) in entirely separate venues. Two completely separate courses of conduct, different players, different lawyers, etc.
Smith could roll up both cases and put a big bow on top, but I just don’t see it happening. The fact situations are just too different – and both cases are much, much too serious to minimize the conduct in either one of them. I’d be gobsmacked if Smith made such an offer.
I had not heard before the idea, suggested earlier in thread, that high profile defendants, or strong case defendants, might not be offered a bargain. I tried googling the federal criteria for no offer being made by the prosecution, and couldn’t find it. However, it seems quite rare that they wouldn’t offer anything.
Trying to think of a super-strong, very high profile federal case, I came up with Bernie Madoff. He did get an offer, but did not take it as it required turning on an associate. Instead he plead guilty without a deal.
It is almost inconceivable to me that Smith won’t offer something, because then he would be treating Trump worse then other defendants. I guess Smih could decline to make an offer because of Donald’s unreasonable condition (cash payment to defendant). But I’d think Smith will ignore that and go through the motions.
Of course, it is done privately, and whatever Trump says about the process will almost surely be misleading.
I didn’t say it was common. I said I had been personally involved in cases where no offer was forthcoming. My experience is at the state level, in California. There’s no “criteria,” and there’s no rule. It’s at the discretion of the prosecution.
I should have said federal. I did see googling that there might often be no state level offer, with crimes against children a too-common example.
Not that long ago, no offer was common in Philadelphia.
Is there an example of a high profile no offer federal case? I’m guessing it might be a foreign drug kingpin case.
You did say federal. Moreover, I think we’re basically saying the same thing. Not sure what you’re disputing in my posts.
Trump did a Fox interview. Apparently it did not go well even from the POV of the Fox talking heads. Here are three Rawstory links about it.
Nothing really. Maybe you were disagreeing with dtilque just a bit less strongly than I might have.
Good lord. That was fast from indictment to confessing to elements of the crime on public TV.
(Based on clips of the interview - basically he said he didn’t return the docs after being asked because he was busy which goes to his state of mind. Ie, he willfully kept the docs after being asked to return them).
In the interview, Trump also accused employees of the National Archives and Records Administration of committing a crime (planting evidence). Aside from the fact that he admitted having the evidence himself (in the same interview) , is there any civil defamation case to be made against him? He did not name any one NARA employee specifically but…
It’s been a while since I’ve watched Trump in an interview and forgot how combative he can be. I was especially amused when he was presented with a list of all the people he hired who have sinced turned against him, people whom Trump has insulted, and couldn’t provide an answer as to why he hired them. I still can’t believe anyone would vote for this guy.
Boy oh boy, he’s really decompensating, isn’t he? By the time this gets to trial, will he even be competent under the Sixth Amendment?
Federal and state law require that a person must be competent in order to stand trial for a criminal charge. Competency means that a defendant understands the nature of the court process. This includes a grasp of the charges and parties involved. Competency ensures that the criminal defendant can rationally assist in their own defense.
This requirement is protected by the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The amendment guarantees a fair trial to everyone charged with a crime. Incompetency is deemed unfair to a defendant because an incompetent person lacks the fitness to stand trial and would not be able to help in defending charges against them.
Can you imagine the chaos if he gets so bad just before or during trial that the judge has to hold a competency hearing?
The trial resumes if the accused is found to be competent. A finding of incompetency means that the defendant is committed to an institute for psychiatric treatment.
A trial can begin at a later date if the accused regains adjudicative competence. If they do not, then the medical institute that they are committed to continues with its care.
I’ve worried about this for awhile.
Granted, he would have to be majorly off his rocker, blatantly so, for the judge to take such an extraordinary step given what’s at stake here. I can’t see the defense attorneys moving for such a hearing, can you? Perhaps the prosecution would, or the judge can always order it sua sponte.
Usually it’s the defendant’s counsel that will move for an evaluation. But I can see the judge doing it in this case, too. If nothing else, the evaluation process will eat up time.
He doesn’t have to be that off his rocker, just incoherent. And he’s pretty far down that path, IMHO. He’s also making it pretty clear that he’s unable to cooperate with counsel in mounting a defense.
I doubt the prosecution will object. I’m afraid they’re going to have to take this case as it comes to them.
Watch Trump get declared mentally incompetent and still win the Republican nomination…
Yeh, with a run of the mill defendant I can definitely see the defense seeking a competency hearing when it’s to their client’s benefit. But this is Trump, who’d probably fire them the instant they brought it up, amirite?
And what would be the reaction in MAGAworld?
The only thing I think we can count on is that it’s all going to end in a chaotic muddle for awhile, with some scattered violence sprinkled on for good measure. We’re years from a resolution to this mess.