Correct. And Biden stopped giving him the courtesy info that ex-Presidents normally get.
The issue is not that he had SCI papers at Mar-a-Lago but that he failed to return the SCI papers when he no longer had legal access to them. And that’s beyond hand-waving away.
And yet quite a breeze will be created.
It might be difficult to get a unanimous verdict for conviction, but if the evidence is compelling he would never be acquitted either. And with a hung jury there can be a retrial. In fact, from what I’m reading, there is no theoretical limit to the number of retrials. There must, presumably, be some process to limit the number of retrials in practice, to prevent abuse by prosecutors. I can’t find exactly what that process is for Federal cases. But assuming that it’s ultimately a matter of judicidal discretion, if the evidence is objectively overwhelming that he’s guilty and it’s clear that politically-motivated jury nullification has taken place, on what basis could a judge reasonably tell the DOJ that they cannot re-try the case?
What I’m getting at - if there’s a hung jury despite compelling evidence through politically-motivated nullifcation, what’s to stop the DOJ tying Trump up in retrials for years until he either dies or pleads? And in a criminal trial, the defendant must be present, he can’t be playing golf while his lawyers handle it.
I’m not saying this would actually happen - but if the threat of it has some teeth, that’s still a strong motivation for Trump to plead to the kind of serious criminal charge that the evidence supports, even if he believes a jury would never unanimously convict him.
Depends on how they got there. I don’t know the procedure for transporting SCI documents between SCIFs, but I’m pretty sure banker’s box in the back of a U-Hail ain’t it.
It would be a fitting denouement if the tastelessly extravagant trim in his plane limited its usual range, preventing him from reaching a country with no extradition treaty.
Well, here’s one thing that will stop the trials: you can’t hold a trial of a sitting president.
And you probably can’t hold a trial of a candidate running for president, either.
So all Trump has to do is declare that he’s running. (Even without the official party convention and nomination, he can circulate petitions in one or more states to put him on the next ballot. )
That will create new and untested issues which will have to be appealed to the Supreme court, a process which will take couple years. By then, it will be November 2024, and (yes folks, you heard it here first!)…,in 2024 Trump WILL win the election.
The last 20 or 30 posts in this thread have been a fun read of fantasies about which jail cell Trump will do his time in, etc.
But let’s get real folks…
He ain’t going to jail.
And he probably won’t even go to trial.
And even it a trial does happen, it will be after he leaves office in 2028–and then you will never get 12 average Americans to convict him unanimously.
They should never have done that. That sounds really risky (moving documents from the “dump” to MaL). And apparently no one who was not a trump toadie was keeping track of whether or not the SCIF documents were returned to the government until after trump was dragged kicking and screaming from office?
Citing unidentified sources familiar with the investigation, Fox News on Saturday evening reported that the FBI seized five boxes that included information covered by attorney-client privilege as part of its extraordinary search at Trump’s Florida property on Monday. The network also reported that its sources said some records could be covered by executive privilege.
Since 1/6, “immense outcry” is a pretty high bar.
I take your point, but I do believe the day he is arrested is the day his supporters come unstuck with respect to their violent urges. I don’t think it’s a reason for DOJ to not carry out its mission, though.
Putting it on Facebook to rile MAGA up that the FBI memo above is code for ‘gear up, the arrest is this week’, 
From this bit of asserted misinformation flows the rest of your erroneous conclusions. Please offer some citation for your basis for thinking this. So far as I’m aware, there is nothing in law, custom or practice that precludes holding a trial for a candidate running for president. There is a DOJ rule that says they are to not do things that can affect an election within 30 days to individuals who are running for office in any given election. Nothing else I’m aware of.
Trump will enjoy running his “untested” issues up to the SCOTUS while he’s sitting in custody during those couple of years. It will be interesting to see if what’s left of the Republican party is eager to support a man in 2024 who is in custody and facing charges for violating the Espionage Act.
I’m not saying they won’t, but it’s not really a recipe for gaining the White House in 2024, is it?
The 747 just needs to be able to make it to Alaska. Hell, Sarah Palin says she can see Russia from her front porch.
Unprincipled Republicans (i.e. virtually all of them) will continue to look at each other to see which way the wind is blowing. De Santis was already neck-and-neck with Trump before any of this happened. That does suggest that the party is quite likely to move away from Trump as their best chance in 2024. But of course the nominee’s best chance is still to play to the rabid Trumpists by portraying Trump as a victim of a political witch hunt, promise to pardon him if necessary, and thus get his endorsement. Trump himself may see this as his safest path, depending on whether his ego or his desire for self-preservation win the day. Everything for him hinges on some Republican winning the next election. If a Republican other than Trump himself rationally has a better chance, Trump can be pardoned and out of legal jeopardy, and still remain an immensely influential figure without having to do any actual work.
Yours is a well-reasoned scenario, IMHO, and very likely how it will play out for Trump. As I’m sure you know, McConnell and others have quietly hoped for a long while that Dems and their efforts to have Trump prosecuted will take care of removing Trump from the field for them. I’ve often said I don’t see why we should hurry the process.
DeSantis terrifies me.
Does having your picture taken at an armed protest outside of an FBI office disqualify you from being on a Trump jury? How about any protest agaisnt Trump being charged? Wouldn’t that show a bias on the part of potential jurist?
I’d think that the FBI has been gathering high quality images of any and all such protest since before 1/6. How about Trump rallies? Would that show a bias and thus show that said person was disqualified to be on a jury?
Jurors aren’t on trial during voir dire, and being a Trump supporter, even one who protested but was only charged with a misdemeanor violation, wouldn’t be a basis to disqualify someone.
If they lie about their participation, yes. If prosecutors have peremptory challenges available to strike the juror, that person is probably gone. But it’s not an outright disqualification.
Similarly, liberal people with a public record of having protested vociferously against Trump in active documented ways would have a difficult time getting on the jury.
It’s probably worth keeping in mind that this trial, if it ever happens, will be held in Washington D.C. Not exactly a writhing hotbed of Trump supporters.
I take that back. It might be held in Florida, and if that is the case, I agree jury selection becomes more challenging. I’m not sure how much latitude DOJ has in picking a venue.
You can exclude those who contributed etc, but IIRC you can’t even ask who they voted for. The AG/etc can use exclude peremptory challenges to exclude those whose FB, etc make it clear they are MAGAs.
But for all those calling Garland a coward or incompetent, or demanding that trump be arrested NOW , here is the reason why he hasn’t been brought for an early indictment:
During an interview on ABC’s “This Week,” two-term governor and potential 2024 presidential contender opined that the search would only strengthen the former president’s standing among core supporters just as he is expected to launch a third presidential candidacy in the coming months.
Yes, which is why he started screaming “stop the steal!” and " vote by mail is fraud" early on.
I think so. Shows bias.
But not simply being a supporter.
Trump himself might worry that if he endorsed someone else, they might renegue on a promised pardon once elected - projecting from his own typical behavior. But if he thinks about it rationally, that would make no political sense at all.
You know what I’m thinking…
I don’t believe we’re going to have to worry about this for awhile. It will take time for DOJ to test all those documents for touch DNA. (The fact that DOJ has stated they intend to do this is one of the reasons I believe they’re going to charge Trump. It’s expensive and it’s time-consuming. No need to do it if all you’re looking to accomplish is to get the documents back to a secure location.)
I’ll be surprised if they move on Trump before the mid-terms.
I have a question about potential members of the jury. Would they be able to remain anonymous, or do their names have to be made public? I wonder, because I can see how all of this will turn their lives upside down to the point where they will have to go into hiding.