Category: Justice Department

Categories
Donald Trump GOP Justice Department The Trump Adminstration WTF?!

Evidence Suggests Some Congressional Republicans Could Still Be Charged For Jan. 6

While it’s been clear for some time now that former President Donald Trump was directly involved in fomenting the violence that took place on January 6 at the U.S. Capitol, reporting from The New York Times suggests that some Republicans in Congress also played a role in the efforts to subvert the 2020 election and keep power through a violent uprising.

Specifically, the Times reveals that notes taken by a top deputy to then-Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen point directly to a coordinated effort between Trump and members of Congress. Those notes, which were handwritten by deputy AG Richard Donoghue, report what Trump told Rosen:

“Just say that the election was corrupt + leave the rest to me and the R. Congressmen.”

That, many legal experts said, is a literal smoking gun, and it means that several Republicans in Congress are facing indictment for their role in what transpired on that fateful day.

Philip Bump of The Washington Post focused in on the notation from Donoghue:

“What Donoghue’s notes suggest is that Trump had fully bought into the effort that would eventually become his Alamo: having Republican legislators block the electoral-vote counting due to take place at the Capitol on Jan. 6.”

Failing to certify counting of the electoral votes would have resulted in a Constitutional crisis. The added chaos of a riot at the Capitol would have provided the perfect opportunity for Trump to declare a national emergency and refuse to hand over the reins of power to Joe Biden. It also would have provided an “excuse” for a coup d’etat. And it would have even had the blessing of a faction in Congress.

Once again, quoting Philip Bump:

“Some congressional Republicans clearly did their best to aid Trump’s effort. On the morning of Jan. 6, (Rep Mo) Brooks spoke before Trump at a rally outside the White House. It was time, he said, to ‘start taking down names and kicking ass.’ It’s not clear if any of those in attendance did the former, but some clearly did the latter.”

Brooks, along with Reps. Jim Jordan, Jim Banks, Lauren Boebert, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Kevin McCarthy (and perhaps others) may well find themselves charged with crimes by the Justice Department.

 

Categories
Crime Donald Trump Justice Department

Jack Smith Is About To Get Trump’s ‘Trove Of Secrets’

A court filing from Special Counsel Jack Smith makes it clear Smith is demanding that failed former president Donald Trump either “put up or shut up” regarding whether or not he wants to use a specific legal defense in the 2020 election interference case brought against him by the Department of Justice, according to a former U.S. Attorney.

Barbara McQuade, who served as U.S. Attorney for Eastern District of Michigan in the Obama administration, notes in an article she wrote for MSNBC that the motion is to the point and could prove devastating for Trump’s legal team and his overall defense.

In a motion filed this week, the special counsel asked Judge Tanya S. Chutkan to order Trump to provide formal pre-trial notice of any intent to rely on advice of counsel as a defense in the federal election interference case. According to the motion, Trump and his lawyers have ‘repeatedly and publicly’ stated an intent to assert the defense at trial. The Dec. 18 exhibit list deadline, Smith argues, is the time for Trump to put up or shut up.

If Trump uses the defense, McQuade explains, he’ll lose the protections found in the attorney-client provisions of the law, which means he could then be forced to turn over any and all documents between him and his lawyers, which is about as risky as it gets when dealing with a criminal case.

Smith’s demand is important because this defense would trigger two significant consequences — a waiver of attorney-client privilege and a duty to produce all documents related to the advice. Until now, Trump has been able to have it both ways — protect testimony and documents from disclosure as privileged, while also claiming that his conduct was lawful because he simply relied on what his lawyers told him.

Those documents could prove especially damning, as they might well show exactly how Trump planned and carried out his attempted coup that culminated in the horror of January 6, 2021.

No matter what happens with the motion in the long run, McQuade concludes, it will force Trump to make a decision that could send him to prison for decades.

Regardless of whether Smith’s motion succeeds, at some point Trump will have to decide whether asserting what may be a flimsy defense is worth sharing his trove of secrets.

Will he or won’t he? We’re about to find out.

 

Categories
Crime Donald Trump Justice Department

Jack Smith May Have Discovered Trump’s Motive For Stealing Classified Documents

A court filing from Special Counsel Jack Smith in the case of former president Donald Trump’s theft of classified documents which he later stored in boxes at his Mar-a-Lago resort makes it clear that Smith has indeed found the underlying motive for why Trump thought he needed those documents in the first place.

Aaron Blake of the Washington Post took a close look at the filing and writes that one particular “nugget” caught his eye.

While arguing against the motion by Trump’s lawyers to delay the May 20 trial, special counsel Jack Smith’s lawyers assured they’re ready to go and that such a delay isn’t necessary, unsurprisingly. But they also said they are ready to prove something significant that, to this point, has remained shrouded and the subject of much speculation: why Trump allegedly took and kept the documents.

In the filing, Smith and his team of prosecutors write, “That the classified materials at issue in this case were taken from the White House and retained at Mar-a-Lago is not in dispute.”

The filing continues:

“What is in dispute is how that occurred, why it occurred, what Trump knew, and what Trump intended in retaining them — all issues that the Government will prove at trial primarily with unclassified evidence.”

Keep in mind that proving intent isn’t necessary for Trump to be found guilty. After all, the evidence shows he had the documents in his possession and knew he wasn’t allowed to have them, despite his public protestations that he had every right to take any document under his powers as president. But of course those powers went away the second he left office, as Blake notes.

You have documents, you fail to return them when the government comes calling and that’s a crime regardless of why you did it, the argument goes. Trump’s indictment in the case made no direct claims about a potential motive.

Proving a motive, however, might be incredibly helpful to convince a jury that Trump had bad intentions and wasn’t just a pack rat.

Indeed, establishing a motive would seem to drive home the intention of Trump’s actions and combat any arguments that this was all a misunderstanding — or that Trump somehow didn’t know what he had (which the government has taken care to undermine).

What might that motive be? Well, it involves Iran, which is suddenly very much in the headlines after the Hamas terrorist attack on Israel.

Perhaps the most significant document in the indictment deals with a plan for attacking Iran, which Trump allegedly showed to a writer and a publisher. A recording of the scene has been made public.

The document and recording are significant because they show Trump acknowledging, in real time, that the document is classified and that he never declassified it — contrary to his public suggestions about the documents. (Trump had also initially said the document didn’t exist and that his talk was mere bravado — before Smith’s team added the actual alleged document to a superseding indictment.)

More specifically, Trump may have wanted to use the documents as a way to attack his critics, including former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley, who has been highly critical of the disgraced ex-president.

Whether other evidence points in this direction, we don’t yet know. But Smith’s team has clearly shown an interest in whether Trump used the documents for his personal advantage. In April it subpoenaed information about the dealings of Trump’s businesses with foreign countries, for instance, apparently in search of a possible financial motive.

Revenge and profit. Those certainly sound like perfect motives for a man as hateful and greedy as Donald Trump. In time, it appears we’ll know for sure.

 

Categories
Crime Elections GOP Justice Department

Jack Smith Looking At Recordings Of Ted Cruz Discussing How To Overturn The 2020 Election

Justice Department Special Counsel Jack Smith is about to have some important new evidence as he continues to investigate the plot to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

According to CNN, Smith is interested in tapes of Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) conspiring to help former president Donald Trump illegally remain in office.


Special Counsel Jack Smith has expressed interest in audio tapes recorded by former Fox News producer Abby Grossberg while she worked at the right-wing network, her lawyer said.

Grossberg attorney Gerry Filippatos told CNN on Wednesday that he has given a spreadsheet to the special counsel’s team, detailing the nearly 90 audiotapes in Grossberg’s possession. Talks are underway for a subpoena, so Grossberg can turn over the material to Smith’s team of federal prosecutors, who are investigating efforts by former President Donald Trump and his allies to overturn the 2020 election.

[…]

In a related development, MSNBC on Tuesday aired a new snippet of one of Grossberg’s tapes. The previously undisclosed audio featured Republican Sen. Ted Cruz talking with Fox News host Maria Bartiromo about his plans to delay Congress’ certification of Joe Biden’s victory on January 6, 2021.

In the taped conversation with Bartiromo, Cruz outlines a plan for delaying the certification by establishing a “commission” to further investigate claims of voter fraud. The Texas senator had proposed a commission in a press release on the same day as the audio recording.

That could wind up resulting in Smith charging Cruz with multiple felonies for conspiring to keep Trump in office, even after it was clear that Joe Biden was the clear victor in both the popular and electoral vote.

In the tape Smith has obtained, Cruz can be heard telling Bartiromo, “As we were looking at this January 6 certification, all of the options that were being discussed were problematic. And so I wanted to find a path that was consistent with the Constitution and the law and that address these very real serious claims.”

According to Cruz, what he said on the tape is no big deal, posting on Twitter:

“This @msnbc [clown] is breathlessly reporting that I ‘secretly’ said in a phone call … the EXACT same thing I said on national television the next morning! And then said again on the Senate floor four days later.”

 

Categories
GOP Justice Department Religion

Garland Goes NUCLEAR On Republican For Accusing Him Of Religious Discrimination

Attorney General Merrick Garland went off on Rep. Jeff Van Drew (R-NJ) during a hearing of the House Judiciary Committee Wednesday when the congressman suggested that the Justice Department discriminates against Catholics who are opposed to abortion.

Van Drew began by remarking, “The two-tiered system of justice is clear and it’s clear to the American public. And the buck stops with the man in charge. That man is you. The actions of the DOJ are on you. The decline of Americans trust in our federal law enforcement is on you. The political weaponization of the DOJ is on you. Attorney General, I need a simple yes or no to the following. Just yes or no because we don’t have much time. Do you agree that traditional Catholics are violent extremists, yes or no?”

The AG replied,  “Let me answer what you’ve said in that long list of-“

“Attorney General, I control the time. I’m gonna ask you to answer the questions I ask,” Van Drew insisted.

Garland: “You’ve controlled the time by asking me a substantial number of things and I –”

Van Drew:  “I didn’t ask you those things, I made a statement. Attorney General, through the chair I ask you, do you agree that traditional Catholics are violent extremists? Answer the question.”

“I have no idea what traditional means here, let me just-” Garland insisted before Van Drew cut him off again.

“Catholics! Catholics that go to church.”

Garland: “May I answer your question? The idea that someone with my family background would discriminate against any religion is so outrageous! So absurd!”

Garland’s family fled from Russia due to anti-Semitism, and the fact that Van Drew would ask such a question clearly infuriated him.

Van Drew continued to press.

“Mr. Attorney General, it was your FBI that did this. It was your FBI that was sending — and we have the memos, we have the emails –were sending undercover agents into Catholic churches.”

The AG replied, “Both I and the director of the FBI have said that we were appalled by that memo.”

Mediaite notes that Van Drew was clearly referring to recent convictions of pro-life Catholics who blockaded family planning clinics:

Garland and Van Drew continued to spar over the DOJ’s treatment of religious Catholics. The former’s DOJ has been criticized for its zealous prosecution of pro-life activists. Last week, two 70+ year old women were found guilty of being “engaged in a conspiracy to create a blockade at the reproductive health care clinic to prevent the clinic from providing, and patients from receiving, reproductive health services.”

Here’s the video: