Reply to the Subpoena Against Donald Trump: What Can We Learn About His Depraved Attempts at Mar-a-Lago?

The House committee voted to issue a subpoena after they heard about his depraved attempt to overthrow the 2020 election and his failure to act during the Capitol storming.

“The need for this committee to hear from Donald Trump goes beyond our fact-finding. This is a question about accountability to the American people. He must be accountable for his actions. He is required to answer for his actions,” Thompson said.

— Any indictment against Trump would be rooted in the principle that no one, not even an ex-president, is above the law. But given the unusual nature and intricacy of the case and the opinion of some legal experts that a conviction might be a challenge, there will also be questions over whether the ex-president’s notoriety would be a factor in any decision to indict him. His lawyers might argue that someone less famous or politically active would have been treated differently.

And Trump is not just confronting a single case of potentially criminal vulnerability. New developments on multiple fronts suggest it’s possible he could be indicted in several separate investigations that are all apparently moving forward in a long-delayed crescendo of possible accountability.

As the House select committee hearing went on, the Supreme Court sent word from across the road that it’s got no interest in getting sucked into Trump’s bid to derail a Justice Department probe into classified material he kept at Mar-a-Lago.

The case could have been delayed without the court’s intervention. Conservatives who were elevated to the bench by Trump seemed to believe in his loyalty and there were no dissents.

Investigating a 20-Year-Old Corresponding Witness’s Misleading Conduct in the State of the Investigative Investigative Action on a Republican Party Candidate

For all the political drama that surrounds the continuing revelations about one of the darkest days of modern American history on January 6, it is the confrontation over classified documents that appears to represent the most clear cut and immediate threat of true criminal exposure.

More news about another Justice Department investigation could be seen in the coverage by television stations, but this time it wasn’t just about the committee hearing. The DOJ has the ability to draw up indictments in its criminal probe.

One witness could be asked to come back. CNN was told that the Manhattan District Attorney, who has been under attack by Trump’s GOP allies, was taking a break. Miller reported that Bragg’s team is working out whether to call back a pivotal witness – Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen – to refute testimony this week by Robert Costello, an attorney who previously represented several Trump allies and appeared before the grand jury at the request of Trump’s legal team.

CNN’s Brown reported late on Wednesday that a Trump employee had told the FBI that the ex-president ordered them to move boxes out of a basement storage room at his Florida club after they received a subpoena. A staffer at the FBI is seen moving boxes.

In a new letter to Republican lawmakers who earlier this week had sought information about the probe, Leslie Dubeck, the general counsel for the district attorney’s office, told the GOP House committee leaders that they lacked a “legitimate basis for congressional inquiry” and she noted that their requests for information “only came after Donald Trump created a false expectation that he would be arrested the next day and his lawyers reportedly urged you to intervene.”

He told CNN that though the details of what happened at Mar-a-Lago raised troubling questions, they were not a case of obstruction of justice.

If the president knew that the documents belonged to the government, they would disobey the subpoena and keep them.

James requested a state court to block the Trump Organization from moving assets and continuing to perpetrate what she has alleged is a decades-long fraud.

“There is every reason to believe that the Defendants will continue to engage in similar fraudulent conduct right up to trial unless checked by order of this Court,” James wrote in an application for a preliminary injunction linked to her $250 million suit against Trump, his three eldest children and his firm.

Jim Jordan, House Judiciary Chairman, had warned that the investigation was a sham and he wanted to know whether federal funds were involved. The Ohio Republican told CNN that they don’t think President Trump broke the law.

There are more probes connected to Trump. There is also the matter of yet another investigation in Georgia over attempts by the former President and his allies to overturn the election in a crucial 2020 swing state.

What will the Unselected Committee do if we don’t hear from the Ex-President during his January 6 Senate confirmation hearing?

As always, Trump came out fighting on Thursday, one of those days when the seriousness of a crisis he is facing can often be gauged by the vehemence of the rhetoric he uses to respond.

The unanimous vote in the select committee to subpoena the former President was mocked by the first Trump spokesman.

Pres Trump won’t be intimidated by their un-American actions. Trump-endorsed candidates will sweep the Midterms, and America First leadership & solutions will be restored,” Budowich wrote on Twitter.

The former President stirred up a political reaction with a post on his Truth Social network that did not respond to the accusations against him.

I was not asked to testify months ago by the Unselect Committee. They waited until the last moment of their last meeting to answer the question. Because the Committee is a total ‘BUST,’” Trump wrote.

It would be surprise if the ex- President did not fight the subpoena given his history of obstructing attempts to examine his tumultuous presidency.

The subpoena might give cover to republicans who feel that it is a politicized attempt to impugn Trump that has not allowed cross-examination of witnesses. If it wished to enforce a subpoena, the committee would have to seek a contempt of Congress referral to the Justice Department from the full House. Steve Bannon, who was Donald Trump’s political guru, was recently found guilty of 2 counts of contempt of Congress and faces sentencing in a few months.

But any effort to follow a similar path if Trump refuses to testify could take months and involve protracted legal battles. It’s unclear whether the Justice Department would consider this a good investment, especially given the advanced state of its own January 6 probe. Republicans are expected to take over the House majority following the elections, which could see the committee swept into history.

Given the slim chance of Trump complying with a congressional subpoena then, many observers will see the dramatic vote to target the ex-President as yet another theatrical flourish in a set of slickly produced hearings that often resembled a television courtroom drama.

Liz Cheney said that the investigation was no longer just about what happened on January 6, but about the future.

After losing her primary to a Trump-backed opponent, the Wyoming lawmaker said that she wouldn’t be returning to Congress with every effort to excuse or justify the conduct of the former President.

Editor’s Note: Jennifer Rodgers is a former federal prosecutor, adjunct professor of clinical law at New York University School of Law, lecturer-in-law at Columbia Law School and a CNN legal analyst. Her own opinions are expressed here. Read more opinion at CNN.

The Case for Donald Pomerantz During the 2021-2019 Errection: Insights from the New Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg

The idea of Pomerantz is that he had a strong criminal case against Trump, but Bragg didn’t have the enthusiasm to bring it. Bragg, for his part, has said that the case was not ready in early 2022 but that the investigation is still ongoing.

By 2022, Pomerantz thought his team had sufficient evidence to file felony charges against Trump in a separate case. But Bragg, the new DA who succeeded Vance, was concerned there wasn’t enough evidence to make the case that Trump intended to break the law.

Before Vance retired at the end of 2021, the Manhattan DA’s office indicted two Trump Organization companies, along with its Chief Financial Officer Allen Weisselberg, on multiple charges of criminal tax fraud and falsifying business records. A jury found the companies guilty on all counts. Weisselberg, who struck a plea deal with the prosecutors, was sentenced in January to five months in jail.

Pomerantz ended up resigning in a public, noisy fashion, writing, “I believe that your decision not to prosecute Donald Trump now, and on the existing record, is misguided and completely contrary to the public interest.” Pomerantz has written a book about the case.

After Trump warned he could be arrested, his allies have been using their new House majority to demand Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s testimony and seek to thwart his investigation relating to an alleged hush money payment to an adult film star before the 2016 election. It looks like an extraordinary attempt to influence an open grand jury investigation.

In a perfect world, a person who is indicted would have the chance to refute a case they say is unfair and not supported by the evidence. But Trump and his allies are not waiting for that moment, and in the process, are offering a preview of the months of deepening political turmoil that a prosecution could entail – not just in Manhattan but in multiple other investigations against him. The investigations into his role in the run up to the Capitol insurrection, his attempt to overturn the result of the 2020 election in Georgia and his handling of classified documents could have far more constitutional implications than the Bragg case.

Then there is the growing circus atmosphere around this drama, which was fueled by Trump’s weekend prediction that he’d be arrested on Tuesday. A source close to Trump’s legal team told CNN on Monday that they do not have any guidance on the timing of a potential indictment beyond that they been told by the DA that nothing is expected Tuesday. It is more likely that the former president will not be in court before next week, a senior law enforcement official told CNN. Such a scenario would only allow tensions to reach a boiling point at a moment when the impression has returned that politics revolves around Trump in a wild vortex.

The ex-reality TV star who was the commander in chief is under investigation for the way he handled classified documents after leaving office. But his most immediate exposure may be in a case over an alleged hush money payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels.

As of the weekend, Trump had not received any official notification that he will be charged by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a Democrat. The grand jury process has been going on for some time and the Trump team has prepared for the possibility of an indictment, according to sources.

Another potential question about the credibility of a possible prosecution is the extent to which it would rely on Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen, who was a central player in the Daniels matter but has a long record of falsehoods.

The ex-president launched a characteristic effort to derail attempts to call him to account, try to intimidate prosecutors, and pressure top GOP officials to rally behind him. Every American has a constitutional right to political self-expression, but the ex-president’s call this weekend for his loyalists – “Protest, take our nation back” – struck an ominous tone since he showed on January 6, 2021, that he was willing to incite violence to further his interests.

Trump lawyer Alina Habba told CNN’s Paula Reid Sunday there would be serious consequences if Trump were to be indicted for a mere misdemeanor – one possible outcome of the Manhattan probe. It’s going to cause a lot of trouble, Paula. Habba said that it was a very scary time in the country. But she also said that “no one wants anyone to get hurt” and Trump supporters should be “peaceful.”

The strategy of House Republicans has been around for a while. Trump has long launched fierce and preemptive attacks on institutions, in government or the law, that seek to hold him to account as he’s tried to blur clarity about his conduct or culpability and ignite a political storm that taints their conclusions in advance.

Trump’s effort to politicize the case and to distract from the allegations against him has already worked as his top allies in Republican House leadership attack Bragg.

Speaker Kevin McCarthy on Sunday called it “the weakest case out there.” The California Republican, who has instructed GOP-led committees to investigate whether the Manhattan DA used federal funds to probe the hush money payment, said at a news conference that he had already spoken to Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan – who is investigating “the weaponization” of the government against political opponents – about looking into that question.

The Trial of Donald Trump and the Bragg Investigation: a New Perspective on the Problems in the Post-Breakout Era

But the speaker also said people should not protest over what may or not happen and insisted that Trump didn’t want that either. “If this is to happen we want calmness out there … no violence or harm to anyone else,” McCarthy said.

Several of Trump’s Republican critics lined up next to him after he posted on his social media. Former Vice President Mike Pence, who is mulling a campaign to challenge Trump for the 2024 nomination, told ABC News, “It just feels like a politically charged prosecution here. I think that it is not what the American people want to see.

New Hampshire Republican Gov. Chris Sununu, who has said it is time for Republicans to move on from Trump, told Jake Tapper on CNN’s “State of the Union” the Bragg investigation was “building a lot of sympathy for the former president.” He added: “I (had) coffee this morning with some folks, and none of them were big Trump supporters, but they all said they felt like he was being attacked.”

Hanging over everything is the mind-bending possibility that, for the first time ever, a former president could be indicted. His claims of plots against him and his followers is likely to tarnish another US election if he is indicted.

There’s also the issue of whether the trauma of putting Trump on trial will have a larger national interest than those connected to the January 6 investigations. There may be repercussions on failed prosecutions.

The Daniels case dates back a long time to an election, even as the nation waits for another White House campaign, and it could raise questions for the public about the case for anyone outside the small bubble of investigation. Arizona Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly told CNN’s Jake Tapper on “State of the Union” on Sunday that “nobody in our nation is or should be above the law.” But he also said: “I would hope that, if they brought charges, that they have a strong case, because this is … unprecedented. And there are certainly risks involved here.”

Kelly’s comment emphasized how Trump, nearly eight years after he burst onto the scene with an upstart presidential campaign, is again shattering convention about the role of presidents and ex-presidents in national life. He again may be about to leap to the center, in the most contentious of ways, of the national psyche and political debate.

The DA and the Investigative Investigation of the 2024 Democratic Presidential Candidate: When Will Bragg Become More Confidential?

Earlier this week, House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, House Oversight Committee Chair Jim Comer, R-Ky., and House Administration Committee Chair Bryan Steil, R-Wisc., sent Bragg a letter demanding documents, communications and testimony related to his investigation of the former president.

The three chairmen said a possible indictment was an abuse of prosecutorial authority and was based on a novel theory that the federal authorities wouldn’t pursue.

They added that if Bragg does indict Trump, Bragg’s actions “will erode confidence in the evenhanded application of justice and unalterably interfere in the course of the 2024 presidential election.”

They said they expect him to appear as soon possible before Congress but did not set a date for a hearing. Bragg had to respond to them by Thursday in order to set up a possible appearance.

House Republicans are huddling at their annual retreat in Orlando, Fla., and the former president, who is running for the GOP nomination in 2024, is dominating the conversation.

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy was asked questions about Trump at a press conference on Sunday, but mostly focused his response on attacking Bragg’s tenure and legal approach.

“One of the reasons we won races in New York is based upon this DA of not protecting the citizens of New York, and now he’s spending his time on this,” McCarthy said. The statute of limitations are gone. He added that the indictment would not hold up in court if he wanted to do it.

The Probable Case of Attorney General Carlos Gimenez: Legal Issues in the Era of Trump’s Investigative Investigations of Business and Election Law Violations

As House Republicans sought to showcase their legislative agenda in the majority, questions about Trump continued to be front and center — a dynamic they struggled with during his time in the White House.

At a bilingual press conference with Hispanic Republicans Monday morning, the first question was about Bragg’s probe. Rep. Carlos Gimenez, R-Fla., used the same refrain most GOP lawmakers have used, telling reporters, “It certainly smells like it’s political.”

The tactic they use to accuse the Biden administration, Bragg and any other investigators on Trump’s trail of employing is weaponizing the powers of government to advance a partisan political end.

Even though there are doubts about a prosecution possibly being assembled by Bragg and the nature of charges related to business and electoral law violations, questions from nonpartisan legal experts regarding the case may not be live up to its billing. This is an especially fateful issue given the gravity of any potential case against a former president.

Trump’s calls for protests, meanwhile, have authorities on edge in New York, where security cameras and barricades have been erected, and in Washington amid painful flashbacks to his incitement of violence to further his personal and political ends on January 6, 2021.

The former president’s fury presented DeSantis, who won a double-digit reelection victory in Florida last fall, with the diciest moment yet in his pseudo campaign and could test Trump’s still enormous hold over the “Make America Great Again” movement. It is possible that Trump’s legal troubles remind voters who rejected him in 2020 and his favored candidates in the last year of the election why they were displeased with his chaotic leadership.

“I do get concerned when I look out there, and I see justice not being equal to others, especially in the history of where we are,” he said. If there is a local Democratic Party playing in presidential politics, I think it will happen across the country.

What Has Changed in the New York Case? An Analysis of Cohen’s Attempt to Tell the Grand Jury about an Indictment

But the use of government power to advance political ends appears to mirror exactly the behavior Republicans, in their new subcommittee on the weaponization of the federal government, are accusing the FBI, the Justice Department and other government agencies of.

Republicans are not certain what the evidence against Trump is other than hints contained in media accounts and a previous case involving his ex-lawyer, Michael Cohen who was previously sent to jail for tax fraud.

CNN reported on Monday, for instance, that Atlanta-area prosecutors are considering bringing racketeering and conspiracy charges in connection with Trump’s election stealing effort in the Peach State, citing a source with knowledge of the investigation.

What has changed in the New York case? CNN legal analyst Carrie Cordero told Wolf Blitzer on the “Situation Room” on Monday. The facts of this case have been going on for almost seven years. What has changed in New York in the past year or so has gotten it to this point?

This is a complicated legal narrative that might convince a jury but could also be a tricky sell in the wider fight for public opinion in such a highly political case.

There are questions as to whether his testimony to the grand jury could affect its vote on an indictment after he said he had listened to Michael Cohen say things that were not true.

The idea that a case would be made on Cohen’s word is not likely. But there is much about this grave matter that the rest of the country doesn’t yet understand.

Investigating the case of Donald Trump’s defense attorney in the early stages of the 2020 election, when the appeals court ruled that he should test before a grand jury

The storm that has accompanied Trump in his return to political center stage is not going to be quelled and could reach hurricane strength over the coming days.

He was dealt a new blow on Wednesday when the appeals court ruled that Trump’s defense attorney must testify before a grand jury in the case of documents he took from his resort. The ruling, which came with surprising speed and thwarted Trump’s typical monthslong delaying tactics, was so significant because the Justice Department had to convince the court there was sufficient evidence to show Trump committed a crime in order to puncture the convention of attorney-client privilege.

Cohen, who made the payment to Daniels, is seen by some analysts as a weak link in any trial since his credibility could be undermined by his own conviction for lying to Congress. Bragg would have to test the question of Cohen’s trustworthiness at a trial or before a grand jury, according to an analyst for CNN. “It’s very much in their interests, to take a beat, step back and decide,” he said. This happens a lot, as prosecutors decide whether or not to bring cases.

Jack Smith, a Justice Department special counsel, is looking at the ex president and his lieutenants for their part in attempts to steal the 2020 election and the US Capitol insurrection. In another sign of the seriousness of the probe, Smith has subpoenaed former Vice President Mike Pence, who helped save US democracy on January 6, 2021, to testify. Smith is investigating Trump’s handling of classified documents.

Source: https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/23/politics/trump-legal-drama-analysis/index.html

Reply to CNN’s Steve Contorno on the State of the Art: Removing the Importance of the 10th Amendment from the U.S. Public Safety Funds

“The governor can’t afford to be marginalized from the get go,” one DeSantis adviser told CNN’s Steve Contorno amid Trump’s attacks on the governor. “He clearly made the calculus it was time to push back.”

All of this underscores the fact that more than two years after Trump left office, the nation is nowhere near working through the enormous political and legal trauma of his term. And if the events of recent days are any indication, Americans may be in for another round of turmoil.

The New York District Attorney’s office investigating former President Donald Trump called Republican requests for its documents and testimony “an unprecedent inquiry into a pending local prosecution.”

She said that the Courts of New York were the proper place to consider and review such objections.

She requested that the committees meet and confer with Bragg’s office to discuss whether the House has a “legitimate legislative” purpose for what it is seeking and whether those records could be turned over without infringing on New York’s sovereign interests.

When CNN asked Jordan about his response to the general counsel of the Manhattan district attorney, he said they were reviewing the letter. Jordan repeated his answer when asked if he would subpoena Bragg.

The Judiciary committee is leading the way on this, when asked by CNN about the response to the initial request from Congress.

Donald Trump’s lawyers urged you to intervene after he created a false expectation that he would be arrested the next day, according to her response Thursday. Neither truth is valid for congressional inquiry.

She said that the Constitution’s 10th Amendment limited the federal government’s authority over local law enforcement and argued that Congress specially is not an executive branch entity with law enforcement powers.

She said that laws protecting grand jury secrecy meant that the House Republicans were looking for non-public information about a pending criminal investigation, which is confidential under state law.

Dubeck does not agree with the Republican claim that they needed testimony from Bragg and documents as part of a congressional review of federal public safety funds.

Dubeck wrote, “the Letter does not suggest any way in which either the District Attorney’s testimony about his prosecutorial decisions or the documents and communications of former Assistant District Attorneys on a pending criminal investigation would shed light on that review.”

She said they would be submitting a letter to Congress explaining the use of federal funds by the office.

“The DA’s Office will not allow a Congressional investigation to impede the exercise of New York’s sovereign police power,” General Counsel for the District Attorney of New York County Leslie Dubeck wrote Thursday.