Trump Indicted in Florida - 37 Counts - TalkLeft: The Politics Of Crime

Trump Indicted in Florida - 37 Counts

By Jeralyn, Section Misconduct
Posted on Thu Jun 08, 2023 at 07:44:58 PM EST
Tags: Trump, Florida Indictment (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Donald Trump has been indicted by a federal grand jury in Florida investigating his retention of classified documents after he left the White House and then obstructing the Government's attempt to reclaim them.

People with knowledge of the Indictment say there are seven counts against him, including conspiracy to obstruct, willful retention of documents and false statements. [Update: They were wrong, he faces 37 counts]

It is a first for the United States. The first time a former President has been indicted for a federal crime.

Update: Trump has already responded on his social media platform claiming to be "an innocent man, an innocent person." That much is true, at this moment he is and will remain innocent, until he is found guilty by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

He is expected to appear in federal court in Miami on Tuesday. More to come.

< R.I.P. Tina Turner and Open Thread | Trump FL Indictment: Walt Nauta Also Charged >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Trump Indicted in Florida - 37 Counts | 35 comments (35 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Seven counts (5.00 / 4) (#1)
by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 08, 2023 at 07:58:11 PM EST

pride, envy, wrath, gluttony, lust, sloth, and greed

: At least (none / 0) (#6)
by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 09, 2023 at 07:19:17 AM EST

Two sources briefed on the seven federal charges against Donald Trump told NBC News they include false statements and conspiracy to obstruct related to retaining classified documents.
One source noted that seven charges don't necessarily mean seven counts -- multiple counts can be associated with each charge

It was just pointed out on MSNBC (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 08, 2023 at 08:05:39 PM EST

that one of the reported charges is conspiracy to obstruct justice which requires at least two people.

God I hope it's Rudy.

Might be (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by MO Blue on Thu Jun 08, 2023 at 08:57:35 PM EST

Mark Meadows. Witness claim he removed 1000s of documents on the last day at White House.


: Hopefully (none / 0) (#5)
by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 09, 2023 at 07:02:35 AM EST

More than one.

When can we expect to see him.. (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by desertswine on Thu Jun 08, 2023 at 09:37:39 PM EST

in one of those jumpsuits?

CNN (none / 0) (#7)
by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 09, 2023 at 08:52:12 AM EST

according to a transcript of the audio recording obtained by CNN.
"As president, I could have declassified, but now I can't," Trump says, according to the transcript.
CNN obtained the transcript of a portion of the meeting where Trump is discussing a classified Pentagon document about attacking Iran. In the audio recording, which CNN previously reported was obtained by prosecutors, Trump says that he did not declassify the document he's referencing, according to the transcript.
Secret. This is secret information. Look, look at this," Trump says at one point, according to the transcript. "This was done by the military and given to me."

Judge Aileen Cannon (none / 0) (#8)
by KeysDan on Fri Jun 09, 2023 at 09:38:38 AM EST

Is reported to be the judge overseeing the case, at least initially. Cannon is the judge, appointed by Trump, who was interfering in the investigate of the documents case and who appointed a special master to review classified materials. The eleventh circuit stepped in and shut that all down.

I think there could be some misplaced (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 09, 2023 at 10:10:49 AM EST

glee that this has happened.

My non professional take is Trump gets a historically Trump friendly judge. Great.

She can not save him. IMO. but it might not be bad he could go down with a Trump friendly judge in charge.

We should keep in mind other, more serious, charges are coming in DC. And GA.


Surely (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 09, 2023 at 10:12:35 AM EST

they must have anticipated this ?


A judge of (none / 0) (#11)
by KeysDan on Fri Jun 09, 2023 at 10:46:27 AM EST

integrity would recuse. Accordingly, she won't. The government could appeal to the eleventh circuit, perhaps on the basis of a pattern of bias in favor of Trump. Certainly, not just not on the basis of who appointed her. It would still seem to be a heavy lift, but then the conservative eleventh.circuit did slap her wrists before.


It is unusual for me to disagree (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by Peter G on Fri Jun 09, 2023 at 11:18:49 AM EST

with KeysDan, but here I do. Prior rulings in favor of a party are not grounds for recusal. Nor is the identity of the President that nominated the judge. If the case is assigned to Cannon she may step aside for appearance' sake, but she would not be required to recuse for any reason I am aware of.


: Regrets, if I did not get (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by KeysDan on Fri Jun 09, 2023 at 12:10:26 PM EST

this right. My thinking was based on a motion of the government (Elouise Pepion Cobell v. Gale Norton, Sec. of Interior) to the DC Circuit for reassignment of a District judge who was felt to show bias. The motion does acknowledge that it seeks such reassignment only rarely and with reluctance.
Also, the llth Circuit, I understand, has in the past ordered reassignment where a judge's objectivity is called into question, such as in US v Martin.
These may not be applicable in this case, and too, as I mentioned, it would be a heavy lift in any event. Thank you for clarifying and setting me straight.

Twice (none / 0) (#13)
by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 09, 2023 at 11:19:35 AM EST

Not a bad visual then or now


DOJ press conference (none / 0) (#15)
by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 09, 2023 at 12:43:42 PM EST

at 3 eastern.

Here it is (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 09, 2023 at 12:56:09 PM EST

Unsealed

38 (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 09, 2023 at 12:59:46 PM EST

counts


Right. 38 counts under 7 different statutes (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by Peter G on Fri Jun 09, 2023 at 01:48:37 PM EST

Which reveals the ambiguity of the term "charges" as used yesterday in saying "seven charges." I downloaded a copy to read, and may have some comments after doing so. As I expect Jeralyn will.


To start with: 31 counts under the Espionage Act (none / 0) (#20)
by Peter G on Fri Jun 09, 2023 at 03:11:37 PM EST

That is, willful and unauthorized retention of national security documents (one count per document), all but eight involving dox marked "top secret." Conspiracy with his close aide, Walt Nauta, to obstruct justice (that is, to ensure non-compliance with the grand jury subpoena) by moving documents out of the reach of and lying to the attorney who came to Mar-a-Lago to perform the subpoena compliance. Corrupt persuasion and misleading of a witness (the attorney) by hiding dox the atty was supposed to review and by suggesting that he lie about the search for and production of the dox. Another similar count framed as concealment of evidence to prevent its discovery. A count of making a false certification to the grand jury by cooking up the statement, signed by Bobb, that the handful of dox they turned over voluntarily was complete. Concealment of material information from the grand jury, i.e., that Tr*mp was personally ordering boxes of dox moved out of the storage room to his residence (and then to Bedminster) and secretly keeping them there. Causing Bobb to make the false statement to the FBI and grand jury that the initial surrender of 38 dox was complete and the result of a dilgent search. And finally, a count against Nauta only (the other counts all name Tr*mp, and some of them Tr*mp plus Nauta) of lying to the FBI, during an interview to which he agreed, about how much he knew about the concealment of the boxes and their contents.


To summarize, the important thing to realize (none / 0) (#31)
by Peter G on Fri Jun 09, 2023 at 08:00:54 PM EST

is that this indictment is not about Tr*mp taking the documents out of the White House when he left, but rather about retaining them after their return, according to law, was demanded by NARA and then by a grand jury. And the lies and scheming that surrounded that refusal. That is why the case is in no way similar to the Biden papers investigation (or Pence's).


: Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by coast on Sat Jun 10, 2023 at 10:00:33 AM EST

One of Trump's lawyers was on Fox speaking to the Presidential Records Act implying that it actually provides Trump cover for his actions. I don't see it that way at all. One things that does standout from the Act though is its provision that states that anyone convicted of a crime related to the review, retention, removal or destruction of records be prevented from accessing any orignal records. So if (when) convicted, he won't be able to access his own presidential records. That's pretty funny given the circumstances.

The best analysis of the indictment (none / 0) (#33)
by Peter G on Sat Jun 10, 2023 at 12:09:33 PM EST

by far, is here


: Be sure to go to the top of the thread (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by Peter G on Sat Jun 10, 2023 at 12:13:18 PM EST

"I LITERALLY stopped working on my memo ...." and read the whole long thing.

Indictment (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by MO Blue on Fri Jun 09, 2023 at 02:50:09 PM EST

indicates two times Trump showed classified documents to individuals who did not have clearance. According to document, he acknowledged that the document was classified and he should not be showing it to the individual.

Scary. Two that DOJ is aware of. How many more incidents that they do not know about.


When he is charged (none / 0) (#23)
by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 09, 2023 at 03:24:28 PM EST

with Seditious Conspiracy in DC this will seem less important.

But this is fun. One bobblehead said there is probably a lot more. That everything is not in the speaking indictment.

May need more popcorn.

I am really really enjoying watching heads explode on FB and Zocial Media


Popcorn? (5.00 / 3) (#25)
by Zorba on Fri Jun 09, 2023 at 04:42:04 PM EST

Popcorn? I'm ready to make a pan of baklava and open a bottle of Metaxa.


Baklava! (5.00 / 2) (#27)
by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 09, 2023 at 07:14:22 PM EST

Can I come to your house?


Channel surf over to FOX (none / 0) (#26)
by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 09, 2023 at 05:09:40 PM EST

just a drive by. They are quite hysterical.

In both senses of the word


: You got that right. (none / 0) (#35)
by Chuck0 on Sat Jun 10, 2023 at 05:03:35 PM EST

I watched about 15 min. of The Five yesterday. Jeanine Pirro is an absolute lunatic. Gutfeld is not far behind. Then watched part of Ingraham's open last night. I'm starting to understand why the magats are so stupid and crazy. So much crazypants drivel. Incomprehensible ridiculous made up junk.

The indictment includes in its background (none / 0) (#21)
by Peter G on Fri Jun 09, 2023 at 03:17:05 PM EST

statement of facts numerous quotes from Tr*mp in 2016-2018 attacking Hillary and others for (supposedly) failing to protect classified info and grandstanding about how important this is, and how those who do not comply should be punished. Ouch. The specific counts appear to be focused on particular incidents and statements the prosecutors are showing they can prove by photos, video and audio tapes, or multiple insider eyewitnesses.

Rachel (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 09, 2023 at 03:20:46 PM EST

just called those quotes the "neener neener factor"

But then explained the real purpose is to show he knew he was breaking the law


And don't forget (none / 0) (#24)
by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 09, 2023 at 03:47:47 PM EST

law he pushed for that increases the punishment for mishandling the stuff to performatively punish Hillary will now be used in him.


One thingg (none / 0) (#29)
by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 09, 2023 at 07:23:27 PM EST

everybody should know now is the imporant stuff is NOT sent via email. Email is only for low level stuff while the serious stuff is printed in folders and many times need to be read in a SCIF.


: Turns out that's not actually true (none / 0) (#30)
by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 09, 2023 at 07:55:06 PM EST

About Trump the law and Hillary
But close enough
KOS

Jack Smith (none / 0) (#28)
by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 09, 2023 at 07:21:14 PM EST

The professionalism is something not seen from Durham or Starr especially Starr who would hold press conferences in his driveway spewing nonsense.

That professionalism greatly undercuts the howling of the GOP. I thought him stating that in America you are innocent until proven guilty also undercut the attacks on the SC from the GOP.