Tumgik
#indicting an ex-president
Link
Tumblr media
I’m posting this column by Nicholas Kristof mostly because of the excerpt below where he refutes GOP claims that indicting Trump upends American norms regarding charging a former president with a crime:
“It will be hard to persuade anyone outside of the progressive bubble that it was worth upending 230 years of American norms and customs to charge — for the first time — a former president with a felony.” — Eli Lake, The Free Press
No! There’s no norm or custom that former presidents are immune from prosecution. I’ve noted that even while he was president, Ulysses S. Grant was arrested by a policeman for speeding in his horse-drawn carriage. That wasn’t an embarrassment to the country but a tribute to democracy.
Likewise, Richard Nixon would probably have faced prosecution if he hadn’t been pre-emptively pardoned. Vice Presidents Aaron Burr and Spiro Agnew were both prosecuted.
Trump and some of his allies have a persecution complex. Marjorie Taylor Greene even compared Trump to Nelson Mandela and Jesus Christ. But let’s not feed it: The norm in America is that presidents obey the law, not that they are excused from it. While legal accountability for all is complicated, it is a feature of our system, not a bug.
155 notes · View notes
fishstickmonkey · 3 months
Text
Using records subpoenaed from the former president’s accounting firm, Mazars, the minority staff alleges that the Chinese government spent over five million dollars at the three Trump businesses between 2017 and 2020, the most of any country recorded.
Hmm. I wonder of Comer & Jordan will be asking the Trump Boys to explain this given their obsession with investigating the children of Presidents for profiting off familial connections.
5 notes · View notes
illgiveyouahint · 6 months
Text
Everytime I hear our president speak I'm like Wow I can't believe we have a normal president who just said a normal thing that president is suppose to say and he didn't offend anyone or said anything I would be ashamed for. How weird!
Like I'm still not used to it. Having a normal president. And i don't really want to get used to it. Because the moment we get used to it we will elect another asshole.
5 notes · View notes
msfangirlgonewild · 7 months
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media
FUCKFACE IS BOOKED! I repeat FUCKFACE IS BOOKED!
3 notes · View notes
Photo
Tumblr media
[h/t Scott Horton]
* * * *
The firmament has shifted.  ::  March 31, 2023
Robert B. Hubbell
         On Thursday, March 30, 2023, the Manhattan District Attorney confirmed that a grand jury has indicted Donald Trump. With that announcement, the firmament has shifted. For seven frustrating years, we were condemned to wander a landscape in which the crimes of lawless president were litigated in the press through rumors and leaks. Reckless statements and bad faith lies were given flight on cable news. Speculation and innuendo were traded on social media like cigarettes in a prison yard.
         No more. The firmament has shifted.
         The charges and defenses will be contested in a court of law in accordance with New York procedure and rules of evidence. While the landscape of rumors and lies will continue unabated outside the courtroom, statements by counsel in the courtroom must have a good faith basis. If not, the judge will punish the lawyers.
         The firmament has shifted.
         The indictment will be read word-for-word, and Trump will be required to admit or deny the charges in a plea consisting of one word or two: “Guilty” or “Not Guilty.” There will be no incoherent rambling, no oblique calls for violence, no code-words for antisemitism, and no appeals for campaign donations.
         The firmament has shifted.
         Every statement made by Trump on social media or the campaign trail will be a potential admission or effort to obstruct justice. Any rational defendant would curtail his speech to maximize chances of acquittal. Trump will either follow his lawyer’s advice (and minimize the likelihood of conviction) or he will continue apace (and subject himself to new charges of obstruction of justice).
         Of course, we do not know what charges are contained in the sealed indictment. The indictment might charge only misdemeanors. Or it might charge an array of financial crimes connected to the prosecution of the Trump Organization and Allen Weisselberg.
         Either way, the Manhattan indictment serves a necessary and valuable purpose. Trump will be indicted twice more (at least)—once in Fulton County, Georgia, and at least once in D.C. for insurrection, the false electors’ scheme, and / or unlawful retention of national defense documents. The shock of indicting a former president for the first time occurs only once. For good or ill, Alvin Bragg has accepted that burden to the relief of Fani Willis and Jack Smith.
         The scandal of Trump's indictment for paying hush money to save his presidential campaign is that the DOJ failed to indict Trump in 2018 when Michael Cohen was convicted for helping Trump commit the underlying crime. Bill Barr killed the federal investigation into Donald Trump in 2018, and Merrick Garland failed to pick up the investigation in 2021. So, yes, Bragg’s indictment is late and (according to some) ill-timed. But given the delay of Merrick Garland and Fani Willis, Bragg should not be blamed for proceeding first with the weakest charges that Trump will face.
         The reaction by Republican leaders has been lawless and antisemitic. Earlier this week, Kevin McCarthy refused to comment on the mass killing of schoolchildren in Tennessee because he wanted to “get the facts” before condemning the slaughter of innocents. But without the benefit of seeing the sealed indictment, McCarthy was quick to condemn the unknown charges and to threaten Alvin Bragg.
         McCarthy said,
Alvin Bragg has irreparably damaged our country in an attempt to interfere in our Presidential election.
The American people will not tolerate this injustice, and the House of Representatives will hold Alvin Bragg and his unprecedented abuse of power to account.
         Of course, the House of Representatives has no power to hold Bragg “to account.” McCarthy’s statement is a naked attempt to intimidate a prosecutor—and should be investigated by the DOJ as obstruction of justice.
         But the statement by Governor Ron DeSantis was much worse. He said that Florida would “not assist in an extradition request” to transfer Trump to New York “given the questionable circumstances at issue.” DeSantis’s threat was hollow because Trump had already signaled his intention to appear voluntarily in New York. But make no mistake, DeSantis was threatening nothing less than a state-sanctioned effort to harbor a fugitive in violation of state and federal law.
         A man who is running for an office sworn to uphold the US Constitution just demonstrated his manifest unfitness for the presidency. Like his ill-considered description of Russia’s war on Ukraine as a “territorial dispute,” DeSantis’s vow to break the law to protect Trump bordered on rebellion and was monumentally stupid.
         But DeSantis also invoked antisemitism in his refusal to extradite Trump to New York. He twice described Alvin Bragg as being backed by George Soros—a fact of no relevance except as a dog whistle to white supremacists and antisemites everywhere. See ADL, The Antisemitism Lurking Behind George Soros Conspiracy Theories.
         As explained by the ADL,
Even if no antisemitic insinuation is intended, casting a Jewish individual as a puppet master who manipulates national events for malign purposes has the effect of mainstreaming antisemitic tropes and giving support, however unwitting, to antisemites and extremists who disseminate these ideas knowingly and with malice.
         Of course, DeSantis’s references to Soros interfering in Bragg’s investigation were not “unintentional.”  As a presidential candidate whose every word is carefully scripted, DeSantis’s multiple references to Soros were intentional—as were the antisemitic tropes embedded in his statement.
         For the moment, Trump intends to surrender in New York next Tuesday for booking and arraignment. If that happens, it will be a singular moment for the rule of law. It will remind the world that America can hold its leaders to account for their crimes—a proposition that was sorely in need of proof. See op-ed by Dennis Aftergut in Washington Post, By indicting Trump, Alvin Bragg restores our faith in the rule of law.  
         The always-wise Josh Marshall made a point on MSNBC on Thursday evening that should be our guide in the coming days. Marshall urged that we avoid “living inside Donald Trump's drama.” We fell for Trump's dramatic ploy last week when he claimed, “I will be arrested on Tuesday.” He and others will spend endless hours drawing us into conversations that second guess Alan Bragg regarding the timing of the indictment, the charges included (or excluded), the credibility of witnesses, etc.
         The Editorial Board of the Washington Post dove head-first into the Trump psycho-drama with its editorial, The Trump indictment is a poor test case for prosecuting a former president. After listing everything that could go wrong with the prosecution, the Post Editorial Board concludes,
This prosecution needs to be airtight. Otherwise, it’s not worth continuing.
         The Editorial Board’s demand that the case must be “airtight” to be “worth continuing” invokes a standard unknown in western jurisprudence. It is a standard that exists only inside the vortex of Donald Trump's fever dreams—in which the WaPo Editorial Board has become hopelessly mired. We should not repeat their mistake.
         Setting aside the imaginary rules that apply only to the Trump melodrama, here is where we are: Trump has been indicted in New York. He will be tried before a jury of his peers. He will be convicted or acquitted, or the jury will be unable to reach a verdict. It’s that simple. Trump wants to make it a circus to upend the rule of law. Don’t fall into his trap.
         We should avoid living inside the Trumpian drama to the extent we can. The case of the People v. Donald J. Trump will take months or years to unfold. In the meantime, we have federal, state, and local elections to win . . . regardless of what happens in the (first) criminal trial of Donald Trump. Stay the course!
Meanwhile, in Congress.
         As if we needed a reminder of why we must take back the House, GOP led committees put an exclamation point after that proposition on Thursday. In the first instance, GOP. Rep. Barry Loudermilk used the first hearing of his sub-committee on Capitol security to present a sham video that allegedly cleared Loudermilk of giving reconnaissance tours of the Capitol to insurrectionists on January 5th. See MSNBC / Maddow Blog, Investigating the Jan. 6 investigation, GOP rep exonerates himself.
         Loudermilk’s self-proclaimed “exoneration” presentation failed to address crucial questions like, “Why was he giving tours of the Capitol when it was closed to the public?,” and “Why did his tour include members of the crowd that stormed the Capitol the next day?” Loudermilk must believe that his constituents are idiots who will believe anything he says . . . .
         In the Jim Jordan “weaponization” committee hearing, Jordan allowed two witnesses to “read” their testimony into the record and then walk out of the hearing without being questioned by members of the committee—including Democrats eager to discredit the witnesses. Video of the shameful episode is here, WaPo, Democrats’ anger boils over after GOP witnesses testify without taking questions.
         I urge you to watch the video so you can see for yourself the smirk that plasters Jordan’s face as he lamely tries to explain that Democrats can ask their questions even though the witnesses have departed the hearing. Jordan resorted to such bad-faith tactics because Democrats have been dismantling Republican witnesses in the Weaponization Committee hearings. Jordan decided to avoid a repeat of that embarrassment by allowing the witnesses to flee the room before Democrats were able to cross-examine the witnesses. They have no shame . . . . and we must replace every last one of them!
Republican Judge rules that ACA-mandated free testing for HIV and cancer screening is unconstitutional.
         As noted previously, the federal bench in Texas is on a mission to dismantle as much of the “administrative state” as possible. In the latest example, federal district judge Reed O’Connor ruled the ACA’s requirement of free HIV testing and cancer screening was unconstitutional. See Ian Millhiser in Vox, The lawsuit that threatens everything from cancer screenings to birth control, explained.
         As Millhiser notes,
Five years ago, Judge Reed O’Connor attempted to repeal the entire Affordable Care Act. His decision striking down Obamacare was widely mocked, even in conservative circles — in the words of one National Review article, O’Connor’s reasoning “doesn’t even merit being called silly. It’s ridiculous” — and the decision was eventually reversed by a 7-2 vote in the Supreme Court.
Nevertheless, on Thursday, O’Connor handed down a new decision that blocks a key provision of the Affordable Care Act that requires health insurers to cover a wide range of preventive health care services — ranging from cancer screenings to obesity counseling to drugs that prevent the spread of HIV.
         Millhiser explains that the re-configured reactionary majority on the Supreme Court is likely to uphold Judge O’Connor’s ruling. If that happens, large swaths of the ACA will be overruled despite the earlier decision of the Court upholding the ACA’s constitutionality.
         The case of Braidwood Management v. Becerra will be in the news for several years—and may change the face of healthcare as we know it today. Why? Because Justices Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Barrett live in a world where premium healthcare is unaffected by their sham conservative legal principles. They get free healthcare no matter how much they gut Obamacare. Meanwhile, forty million Americans will suffer worse health outcomes, including death, because of the conservative majority’s social Darwinism approach to the law.
         What’s the solution? Enlarge the Court!
A reflection on hope and optimism
         For your weekend reading, I recommend a remarkable op-ed by Amanda Ripley in WaPo, This element is critical to human flourishing — yet missing from the news. (The link should work for everyone.) It is filled with helpful advice about remaining hopeful during difficult times.
         You may be surprised to learn that I receive fairly consistent criticism from readers (including in today’s email!) that my hopeful and optimistic outlook does a disservice to my readers. I am frequently told that I am naïve, and that my optimism lulls people into a false sense of security and inaction. As I frequently respond, “If you tell people that the future is hopeless, they will believe you”—and then what?
          Amanda Ripley addresses some of these criticism in her article, explaining why as a journalist, it is “easier” to adopt a cynical, negative view. She writes,
As a journalist, trying to look smart in story meetings, it always felt safer to remain skeptical. It was easier to pitch stories about buffoonery than about progress. It’s a strange trick of the mind, especially because it’s the news media’s relentless negativity that has led so many people to give up on institutions . . . . . Cynicism feels protective, even when it’s not.
         Being pessimistic is the easy way out—and creates a self-fulfilling doom narrative. Being optimistic is hard. As Ripely writes,
Hope is more like a muscle than an emotion. It’s a cognitive skill, one that helps people reject the status quo and visualize a better way.
         And for those critics who claim that I ignore bad news and minimize the threats we face, you haven’t been reading the newsletter closely for the last seven years. But there is a difference between recognizing bad news and surrendering to despair. As I told a reader today—with sincere affection—“I am sorry you feel that way. My best advice is that you try not to discourage other people.”
         Optimism is contagious. So is pessimism. If you choose to mediate reality by assuming the worst, that may be the best strategy for you, but it is a poor basis for rallying others to continue the struggle for a better future. If the seemingly relentless bad news of the last week has you down, read Amanda Ripley’s article. She may be able to persuade you to be hopeful, even if I have failed.
Concluding Thoughts.
          On March 7, 1965, John Lewis awoke in a hospital bed with a fractured skull suffered at the hands of white police officers who attacked 600 marchers on the Edmund Pettus Bridge. Ten days later, March 17th, he testified at a federal hearing about those unprovoked beatings—known as Bloody Sunday. Four days later, March 21st, John Lewis joined 3,200 marchers who resumed the march from Selma to Montgomery.
         In addition to his bravery, John Lewis was driven by unflagging hope. Was he foolish? Or naïve? Did he lull others into a false sense of security or inaction? I am not comparing myself to John Lewis—nor should you. But we can learn from his refusal to give in to despair—even though he had ample reason to do so.
         “Hope is more like a muscle than an emotion.” Exercise it. It will come in handy as we face the challenges to come.
Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter
9 notes · View notes
thelifeelsewhere · 7 months
Text
The Opinion Of Dr. Binoy Kampmark. The Real Tony Montana(s)?
The learned Dr. Binoy Kampmark, senior lecturer at RMIT University in Melbourne, Australia is a frequent and welcome contributor to Life Elsewhere. His regular commentaries for CounterPunch are often the raison d’être to invite the professor to share his well-considered opinions with you. In this edition Binoy talks about Oppenheimer – The Truth Vs. The Movie. Assange Be Wary: The Dangers of a US…
Tumblr media
View On WordPress
0 notes
bikerpoliticalreport · 9 months
Text
Judge: Trump Can’t Review Evidence in Documents Case Unsupervised
   A U.S. judge in Florida on Monday ordered defense lawyers for former President Donald Trump not to release evidence in the classified documents case to the media or the public, according to a court filing.
   The order from U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart also put strict conditions on Trump’s access to the materials.
   “The Discovery materials, along with any information derived therefrom, shall not be disclosed to the public or the news media, or disseminated on any news or social media platform, without prior notice to and consent of the United States or approval of the Court,” the order filed on Monday said.
   It also specified that Trump “shall not retain copies” and that he may only review case materials “under the direct supervision of Defense Counsel or a member of Defense Counsel’s staff.”
   The order granted a motion filed last week by prosecutors who had asked the court to put conditions on how the defense stores and uses the documents.
   Trump, who is the frontrunner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, was indicted on federal charges earlier this month. He was accused of illegally retaining classified government documents after leaving the White House and then conspiring to obstruct a federal probe of the matter.
   Trump has pleaded not guilty to all 37 counts in court.
   The former president faces other legal hurdles, having been indicted by New York prosecutors in connection with an alleged hush-money payment to a porn star.
   Special Counsel Jack Smith, who was appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland, is also probing Trump’s alleged role in actions surrounding his loss in the 2020 presidential election that culminated in an attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
© 2023 Thomson/Reuters. All rights reserved.
1 note · View note
reasonsforhope · 10 months
Text
HOLY SHIT THEY DID IT
TRUMP HAS BEEN CHARGED WITH SEVEN COUNTS OF FEDERAL CRIMES
"Donald Trump said Thursday [June 8th] that he has been indicted on charges of mishandling classified documents at his Florida estate, igniting a federal prosecution that is arguably the most perilous of multiple legal threats against the former president as he seeks to reclaim the White House.
The Justice Department did not immediately publicly confirm the indictment. But two people familiar with the situation who were not authorized to discuss it publicly said that the indictment included seven criminal counts...
The indictment enmeshes the Justice Department in the most politically explosive prosecution in its long history. Its first case against a former president upends a Republican presidential primary that Trump is currently dominating, and any felony charges would raise the prospect of a yearslong prison sentence...
The indictment arises from a monthslong investigation by special counsel Jack Smith into whether Trump broke the law by holding onto hundreds of documents marked classified at his Palm Beach property, Mar-a-Lago, and whether Trump took steps to obstruct the government’s efforts to recover the records.
Prosecutors have said that Trump took roughly 300 classified documents to Mar-a-Lago after leaving the White House, including some 100 that were seized by the FBI last August in a search of the home that underscored the gravity of the Justice Department’s investigation...
The investigation had simmered for months before bursting into front-page news in remarkable fashion last August. That’s when FBI agents served a search warrant on Mar-a-Lago and removed 33 boxes containing classified records, including top-secret documents stashed in a storage room and desk drawer and commingled with personal belongings. Some records were so sensitive that investigators needed upgraded security clearances to review them, the Justice Department has said."
-via WTOP News, June 8, 2023
1K notes · View notes
qqueenofhades · 8 months
Note
-Quickly skitters into the inbox, with a boom box and an increasingly bass boosted version-
🎶I PUT MY HANDS UP THEY’RE PLAYING MY SONG THE BUTTERFLIES FLY AWAY-🎶
- Party In The USA anon, on the recent glorious news
Look. LOOK. I know we've had technically bigger fish, but the Georgia case is a Big Fucking Deal. Because:
It is a MAJOR indictment both in terms of scope and seriousness of charges. Not just Trump, but *eighteen* of his allies and cronies got charged with RICO (anti-racketeering, often used against mob bosses) felonies, including Rudy Giuliani (I repeat, HAHAHAHAHHAHAHA), Jeff Clark, Mark Meadows, and other high-profile Trumpworld enablers
No Lindsey Graham (at least yet) but I guess we can't have everything
It encompasses both in Georgia and other states where Trump illegally tried to alter election results (Michigan, Arizona, and Pennsylvania), as those activities related to a conspiracy centered on Georgia/Fulton County
This is the big whopper: TRUMP CANNOT CANCEL THIS INVESTIGATION EVEN IF HE GETS RE-ELECTED. He can shut down the federal Special Counsel investigations run through the DoJ, but this? Bupkis. And Georgia governor Brian Kemp, another of the Republicans who dutifully continues to defend Trump even as Trump slanders him up and down, CAN'T PARDON HIM.
That drives the Republicans NUTS. So nuts that they were, you guessed it, already on Faux News whining about how they should make Georgia change that law.
Boo-fucking-hoo, you absolute fucking wankers.
Also: we need to remember that Trump rose to political prominence by being wildly racist and xenophobic about America's first Black president. He has coddled and exalted white supremacists and white supremacist rhetoric at every turn, it has been the central defining feature of his campaign, and his election subversion efforts were chiefly aimed at canceling the votes of heavily Black cities (Atlanta, Philly, Detroit, etc.)
Trump also won in 2016 thanks to the Electoral College, itself designed as an element of structural racism, by defeating probably the most qualified and beyond any doubt most historic candidate there has ever been, after it was revealed that he was a serial sexual assaulter and after he screamed for months about LOCK HER UP (every Republican accusation is a confession, etc)
All that said, with Trump's vile, derogatory bile spewed at everyone, but especially a) Black people, b) women, and c) powerful Black women, it is a Big Fucking Deal that a powerful Black woman, aka his worst nightmare, pulled this trigger on him.
Don't get me wrong. I deeply appreciate me some Jack Smith. But he is also a white male special counsel appointed by the Department of Justice, and who used to work for the Hague prosecuting war crimes (true story). It's in his brief to do this.
Fani Willis is a county district attorney AND a Black woman, as Trump's nonstop shitgibbering on Truth Social just can't help himself from pointing out. This kind of sprawling, country-wide investigation against a wildly corrupt ex-president and his cohort of equally corrupt cronies is not something she is, in the normal course of things, ever expected to do, but she did it.
NINETEEN DEFENDANTS, Y'ALL. Including Trump. On 41 different charges. That's a hell of an indictment, and she knows it puts a target on her back, while (as noted) she doesn't have the resources and protections of the federal government/DOJ to do it.
Let's hear it for Fani Willis (and Judge Chutkan, who informed Trump the other day the more he runs his mouth, the faster she will proceed to trial) y'all.
Black Women Get Shit Done.
321 notes · View notes
And now we find out the Fussians lied to the FBI because they wanted weakling Trump as President. The only deep state is the conservative Republican deep state that takes orders from Moscow.
64 notes · View notes
afloweroutofstone · 1 year
Text
Read all options before voting
207 notes · View notes
espanolbot2 · 1 year
Link
162 notes · View notes
bundibird · 8 months
Text
Tumblr media
How many times can an ex-president be indicted before he becomes too embarrassed to ever be seen in public again?
127 notes · View notes
mariacallous · 1 month
Text
The informant accused of fabricating a story about President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden taking $5 million each in bribes allegedly had high-level Russian intelligence contacts, according to newly filed court documents.
In the filing, Special Counsel David Weiss reveals that after his arrest last week, Alexander Smirnov told the FBI "that officials with Russian intelligence were involved in passing a story" about Hunter Biden.
Prosecutors argued in their filing Smirnov should be held pending trial, with Weiss saying that Smirnov's claims he has active contacts with "multiple foreign intelligence agencies" and had planned to leave the U.S. just two days after his arrival in the U.S. last week "for a months-long, multi-country foreign trip."
However, a judge late Tuesday ordered Smirnov released from custody, under the condition that he surrender his passport, wear an ankle monitor, and be restricted to traveling only to Nevada and to California for court purposes.
In Weiss' filing, he wrote that "foreign intelligence agencies could resettle Smirnov outside the United States if he were released."
Furthermore, "Smirnov's efforts to spread misinformation about a candidate of one of the two major parties in the United States continues," the filing states. "What this shows is that the misinformation he is spreading is not confined to 2020. He is actively peddling new lies that could impact U.S. elections after meeting with Russian intelligence officials in November. In light of that fact there is a serious risk he will flee in order to avoid accountability for his actions."
Smirnov's assigned defense counsel disputed Weiss' claims that Smirnov misled the court's pretrial services officer about his personal wealth.
Attorney David Chesnoff said that when Smirnov met with the officer he was "only asked about his personal assets and not the business account."
His attorney did not directly address the other claims raised by Weiss regarding Smirnov's claimed extensive ties to Russian intelligence or other issues they say present a risk he will flee prosecution.
The developments come as Hunter Biden's team suggested that the informant's alleged fabrications helped tank a plea deal.
Attorneys for Hunter Biden claimed in court filings on Tuesday that a bribery allegation made by the newly indicted ex-FBI informant may have contributed to the demise of their client's plea deal with prosecutors last year.
According to the filings, the lawyers largely base their assertion on the fact that Hunter Biden's deal unraveled around the same time that the Justice Department began scrutinizing the informant's claims of Biden family corruption. In court papers filed Tuesday, Abbe Lowell, an attorney for the president's son, slammed Weiss for allegedly following the informant, Smirnov, "down his rabbit hole of lies."
But it's not clear from court records that the downfall of Hunter Biden's deal was connected in any meaningful way to Smirnov's allegations. And it's not clear that Weiss ever found Smirnov's allegations credible.
Weiss opened his investigation years after senior Justice Department officials determined that Smirnov's allegations were not worth pursuing further. And the investigation came around the same time that Republican lawmakers publicly released an FBI document detailing the informant's allegations, which the Justice Department now says were completely "fabricated."
Specifically, Weiss filed felony false statement and obstruction charges against Smirnov last week for telling his FBI handler in 2020, as Joe Biden was running for the White House, that Biden and his son had accepted $10 million in bribes from a Ukrainian oligarch.
In Weiss' indictment of Smirnov, he noted that in July 2023, investigators pursuing Hunter Biden launched "an investigation of allegations related to" the informant's prior claims – shortly before a July 26, 2023, court hearing where their negotiated plea agreement with Hunter Biden fell apart.
In court papers filed Tuesday, Lowell tried to tie it all to his client's doomed plea deal.
"Having taken Mr. Smirnov's bait of grand, sensational charges, the [plea deal] … that was on the verge of being finalized suddenly became inconvenient for the prosecution, and it reversed course and repudiated those agreements," Lowell wrote. "It now seems clear that the Smirnov allegations infected this case."
Lowell's allegation appeared in filings intended to convince a judge to order the Justice Department to hand over even more government documents related to his client's case.
Investigators spent five years probing Hunter Biden's foreign business deals before reaching a deal last summer that would allow him to plead guilty to misdemeanor tax crimes in exchange for probation. Hunter Biden also would have agreed to a pretrial diversion on a separate gun charge, with the charge being dropped if he adhered to certain terms.
But that deal fell apart under questioning from a federal judge, whose line of questioning about the deal exposed fissures between the two parties, prompting prosecutors to threaten Hunter Biden with additional charges under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.
It was the specter of potential FARA violations that led Lowell to accuse Weiss' team of inappropriately reviewing Smirnov's claim years after the FBI determined them to be incorrect.
Weiss ultimately brought three felony gun-related charges against Hunter Biden in Delaware and additional tax-related charges in California. Hunter Biden has pleaded not guilty to them all.
Sawdust or cocaine?
Meanwhile, in the same filing Tuesday, Lowell pointed out what appears to be an embarrassing gaffe by prosecutors: mistaking sawdust for cocaine. Weiss' office included in a previous filing an image of what he said were lines of cocaine on Hunter Biden's phone around the time that he purchased a firearm.
But according to Lowell, the photo was sent by Hunter Biden's then-psychiatrist and showed not cocaine, but sawdust, which Lowell said, "sounds more like a storyline from one of the 1980s Police Academy comedies than what should be expected in a high-profile prosecution by the U.S. Department of Justice."
27 notes · View notes
nodynasty4us · 8 months
Link
From the July 27, 2023 article:
The charges include “willful retention of national defense information and two new obstruction counts based on allegations the ex-president and a pair of aides attempted to delete surveillance footage at the private Mar-a-Lago club in the summer of 2022,” The Messenger reports.
“Thursday’s developments also include the addition of a second co-defendant alongside Trump and his valet, Walt Nauta. Carlos De Oliveira, a Mar-a-Lago maintenance worker, was added to the original indictment against Trump and Nauta and now charges him with obstruction conspiracy tied to the surveillance footage.”
88 notes · View notes
bighermie · 8 months
Text
51 notes · View notes