A in-depth 61 page legal filing by the January 6th committee regarding John Eastman's actions outlines Trump's crimes related to the insurrection.
Jan. 6 committee says Trump violated multiple laws in effort to overturn election
The select panel suggested its evidence supported findings that the former president violated multiple laws by attempting to prevent Congress from certifying his defeat.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/02/jan6-trump-obstruction-justice-00013440
The Jan. 6 select committee says its evidence has shown that then-President Donald Trump and his campaign tried to illegally obstruct Congress’ counting of electoral votes and “engaged in a criminal conspiracy to defraud the United States.”
In a major release of its findings, filed in federal court late Wednesday, the committee suggested that its evidence supported findings that Trump himself violated multiple laws by attempting to prevent Congress from certifying his defeat.
“The Select Committee also has a good-faith basis for concluding that the President and members of his Campaign engaged in a criminal conspiracy to defraud the United States,” the committee wrote in a filing submitted in U.S. District Court in the Central District of California.
Characterizing excerpts of nearly a dozen depositions from top aides to Trump and former Vice President Mike Pence, the committee described a president who had been informed repeatedly that he lost the election and that his claims of fraud were unfounded — only to reject them and continue to mislead the American public.
He then pushed top advisers to continue strategizing ways to overturn the election results.
The panel released its findings as part of a legal push to force John Eastman, an attorney who was a key driver of Trump’s strategy to subvert the 2020 election, to produce crucial emails tying together elements of the scheme they described.
In 16 accompanying exhibits, the panel showcased testimony it received from key figures in Trump-world, including campaign adviser Jason Miller, White House communications aide Ben Williamson, Pence national security adviser Keith Kellogg, Pence counsel Greg Jacob and Pence chief of staff Marc Short. Top Justice Department officials also provided crucial testimony revealed by the panel Wednesday night, including Acting Attorney General Jeff Rosen and his top adviser, Richard Donoghue.
A deposition of Eastman himself reveals that the Trump ally invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination nearly 150 times in declining to answer the committee’s questions.
Other documents include a page from Trump’s private Jan. 6 schedule, released to the Jan. 6 select committee by the National Archives in recent weeks. The schedule includes an 11:20 a.m. call with Pence, as well as a call with then-Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R-Ga.).
Although the evidence offers insight into the contours of what is likely to be the committee’s final report, it is only a small window into the 650-plus interviews the panel has conducted.
The committee suggests Trump and some of his allies may have committed three distinct crimes: Obstruction of an official proceeding — in this case, Congress’ Jan 6 session to count electoral votes — defrauding the United States by interfering in the election certification and spreading false information about the results, and a violation of the District of Columbia’s common fraud law.
Aides to Trump did not respond to requests for comment, but Charles Burnham, Eastman’s attorney, offered the following response: “Like all attorneys, Dr. John Eastman has a responsibility to protect client confidences, even at great personal risk and expense. The Select Committee has responded to Dr. Eastman’s efforts to discharge this responsibility by accusing him of criminal activity. Because this is a civil matter, Dr. Eastman will not have the benefit of the Constitutional protections normally afforded to those accused by their government of criminal conduct. Nonetheless, we look forward to responding in due course.”
To prove Trump committed felony obstruction, investigators would have to show he “corruptly” intended to impede an official proceeding — and the committee says his work with Eastman to pressure Pence to take illegal acts could satisfy this requirement, particularly as Trump continued to spread claims of fraud that his own allies said were unfounded.
Determining whether Trump violated criminal law on Jan. 6 is a complex undertaking, though the panel’s findings may drive up pressure on the Justice Department to reveal its own thinking on the matter. Prosecutors have charged hundreds of Trump supporters who breached the Capitol with seeking to obstruct Congress’ effort to count electoral votes, but applying that law to the former president presents a trickier calculus.
The panel says the evidence supports an “inference” that Trump knew he had lost the election — Miller described a blunt conversation with Trump in which campaign aides told him he had lost — “but the President nevertheless sought to use the Vice President to manipulate the results in his favor.”
Miller told the committee that campaign aide Matt Oczkowski told Trump in the Oval Office that “he was going to lose,” citing county and state-level results that were being reported. But Miller said Trump refused to accept their assessment.
“He believed that Matt was not looking at the prospect of legal challenges going our way,” Miller told the panel, “and that Matt was looking at purely from what those numbers were showing as opposed to broader things to include legality and election integrity issues which, as a data guy, he may not have been monitoring.”
The bulk of the committee’s legal filing focused on reconstructing Eastman’s efforts to justify ordering Pence to overturn the election single-handedly when he presided over Congress’ electoral-vote-counting session on Jan. 6, 2021.
Eastman, however, didn’t relent even after a violent mob — egged on by Trump — stormed the Capitol and sent Pence and Congress fleeing for safety. Eastman continued to press Pence to overturn the election.
“Thanks to your bullshit, we are now under siege,” Jacob, Pence’s counsel, emailed Eastman, along with a lengthy refutation of his argument.
“The ‘siege’ is because YOU and your boss did not do what was necessary to allow this to be aired in a public way so the American people can see for themselves what happened,” Eastman replied, according to emails obtained by the panel.
Jacob subsequently apologized for his language, attributing it to the stress of being moved to a safe location while his wife and three children were watching the news and he was fearing for his safety.
Even after this exchange, Eastman made one final plea to convince Pence to stop the counting of electoral votes, acknowledging it would amount to a “relatively minor” violation of the federal law known as the Electoral Count Act.
“Plaintiff knew what he was proposing would violate the law, but he nonetheless urged the Vice President to take those actions,” the committee wrote in its filings.
Chair Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) and Vice Chair Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) said in a statement later Wednesday that their fact-finding strongly suggested: “Dr. Eastman’s emails may show that he helped Donald Trump advance a corrupt scheme to obstruct the counting of electoral college ballots and a conspiracy to impede the transfer of power.”
The select committee revealed its evidence as part of a bid to convince a federal judge to require Eastman to provide more of his own emails — held by his former employer Chapman University — to congressional investigators. Eastman sued to block the panel from accessing his Chapman emails, claiming they would reveal records protected by attorney-client privilege.
But the panel’s emphasis on potential crimes may convince U.S. District Court Judge David Carter — who has repeatedly ruled against Eastman — that none of Eastman’s records are protected by privilege.
Carter, who is based in California, has rejected Eastman’s attempts to shield his records, citing the urgency and significance of the select committee’s work. Instead, Carter has ordered Eastman to quickly review 90,000 pages of emails and attachments and to itemize any he thinks should be withheld because of attorney-client privilege. He has repeatedly sided with the committee’s demands, such as requiring Eastman to prioritize emails sent between Jan. 4 and Jan. 7, 2021, and to force him to disclose his legal relationship with Trump, which had never been publicly revealed.
But the committee indicated that Eastman’s purported relationship with Trump fails to prove he had a legitimate claim of attorney client privilege.
Eastman, according to the panel, produced a letter identifying his client as Trump’s campaign, but the letter was left unsigned. “This unsigned and unauthenticated engagement letter is insufficient to establish an attorney-client relationship during the period at issue,” the House’s lawyers wrote.
Preparing for Trump's Indictment
- Thread starter gwb-trading
- Start date
''What do i have to lose ? ... If i do this , what do i have to lose ?'' asked the loser.
Trump White House lawyer desperately tried to stop him from enacting a 'murder-suicide pact' with America
Newly revealed details about President Donald Trump's last days in office show that White House counsel Pat Cipollone tried desperately to stop him from pursuing bogus claims of a stolen election -- including one measure he considered a "murder-suicide pact."
The New York Times, while reporting on recently disclosed testimony before the House Select Committee investigating the January 6th Capitol riots, reveals that the former White House counsel was particularly alarmed by a plan concocted by former Department of Justice official Jeffrey Clark that involved sending "official letters to multiple state legislatures falsely alerting them that the election may have been stolen and urging them to reconsider certified election results."
“That letter that this guy wants to send — that letter is a murder-suicide pact,” Cipollone told Trump. “It’s going to damage everyone who touches it. And we should have nothing to do with that letter. I don’t ever want to see that letter again.”
Richard Donoghue, a former top Justice Department official, told the committee that he also repeatedly tried getting Trump to stop his plans to overturn the election, but he kept pushing more extreme measures.
“The president said something to the effect of: ‘What do I have to lose? If I do this, what do I have to lose?’” he told the committee. “And I said: ‘Mr. President, you have a great deal to lose. Is this really how you want your administration to end? You’re going hurt the country.’”
Trump White House lawyer desperately tried to stop him from enacting a 'murder-suicide pact' with America
Newly revealed details about President Donald Trump's last days in office show that White House counsel Pat Cipollone tried desperately to stop him from pursuing bogus claims of a stolen election -- including one measure he considered a "murder-suicide pact."
The New York Times, while reporting on recently disclosed testimony before the House Select Committee investigating the January 6th Capitol riots, reveals that the former White House counsel was particularly alarmed by a plan concocted by former Department of Justice official Jeffrey Clark that involved sending "official letters to multiple state legislatures falsely alerting them that the election may have been stolen and urging them to reconsider certified election results."
“That letter that this guy wants to send — that letter is a murder-suicide pact,” Cipollone told Trump. “It’s going to damage everyone who touches it. And we should have nothing to do with that letter. I don’t ever want to see that letter again.”
Richard Donoghue, a former top Justice Department official, told the committee that he also repeatedly tried getting Trump to stop his plans to overturn the election, but he kept pushing more extreme measures.
“The president said something to the effect of: ‘What do I have to lose? If I do this, what do I have to lose?’” he told the committee. “And I said: ‘Mr. President, you have a great deal to lose. Is this really how you want your administration to end? You’re going hurt the country.’”
'Coup Memo' Lawyer Loses Bid To Hold Up Records He Warns Could Convict Trump
https://news.yahoo.com/coup-memo-lawyer-loses-bid-042836055.html
The right-wing attorney who authored “coup memos” for Donald Trump and supporters on how to scuttle the presidential election lost a court battle Friday to hold back his documents from the House select committee investigating last year’s Jan. 6 insurrection.
Lawyer John Eastman had claimed the situation had turned him into a “pseudo-defense attorney for the former president” — so the emails are thereby protected by attorney-client privilege.
Eastman warned in his civil suit that granting the committee access to his emails involving the former president could amount to a historic legal finding that Trump may have committed a crime while he was a sitting president.
“Were this Court to sustain the defendants’ claims, it may be the first formal finding of Presidential criminality by a federal court in United States history,” Eastman wrote in his suit seeking to hold up access to his records.
The committee argued Wednesday that Eastman’s records are indeed likely to show evidence of multiple crimes committed by both him and Trump, which would thereby trigger the “crime-fraud exception” to attorney-client privilege.
The explosive filing alleged that Trump and key allies conspired to defraud the U.S. and obstruct an official congressional proceeding: the certification of electoral votes.
Eastman also argued Friday that just as in a criminal trial, the committee should be required to turn over any exculpatory evidence it has — which could prove innocence — before he can cooperate.
U.S. District Court of Central California Judge David Carter dismissed Eastman’s objections late Friday.
Carter noted that battles over attorney-client privilege in a civil lawsuit — even when they involve criminal allegations — don’t merit protections for criminal defendants because there’s currently no risk of jail time.
Eastman’s records could be critical in the committee’s investigation. He devised a strategy to throw out election results, and discussed it in the Oval Office. He also fired off haranguing emails to Greg Jacob, counsel at the time for then-Vice President Mike Pence, over electoral votes as the men hid during the Jan. 6 insurrection from Trump supporters stormed through the Capitol.
Check out Eastman’s arguments here, and the judge’s ruling here.
https://news.yahoo.com/coup-memo-lawyer-loses-bid-042836055.html
The right-wing attorney who authored “coup memos” for Donald Trump and supporters on how to scuttle the presidential election lost a court battle Friday to hold back his documents from the House select committee investigating last year’s Jan. 6 insurrection.
Lawyer John Eastman had claimed the situation had turned him into a “pseudo-defense attorney for the former president” — so the emails are thereby protected by attorney-client privilege.
Eastman warned in his civil suit that granting the committee access to his emails involving the former president could amount to a historic legal finding that Trump may have committed a crime while he was a sitting president.
“Were this Court to sustain the defendants’ claims, it may be the first formal finding of Presidential criminality by a federal court in United States history,” Eastman wrote in his suit seeking to hold up access to his records.
The committee argued Wednesday that Eastman’s records are indeed likely to show evidence of multiple crimes committed by both him and Trump, which would thereby trigger the “crime-fraud exception” to attorney-client privilege.
The explosive filing alleged that Trump and key allies conspired to defraud the U.S. and obstruct an official congressional proceeding: the certification of electoral votes.
Eastman also argued Friday that just as in a criminal trial, the committee should be required to turn over any exculpatory evidence it has — which could prove innocence — before he can cooperate.
U.S. District Court of Central California Judge David Carter dismissed Eastman’s objections late Friday.
Carter noted that battles over attorney-client privilege in a civil lawsuit — even when they involve criminal allegations — don’t merit protections for criminal defendants because there’s currently no risk of jail time.
Eastman’s records could be critical in the committee’s investigation. He devised a strategy to throw out election results, and discussed it in the Oval Office. He also fired off haranguing emails to Greg Jacob, counsel at the time for then-Vice President Mike Pence, over electoral votes as the men hid during the Jan. 6 insurrection from Trump supporters stormed through the Capitol.
Check out Eastman’s arguments here, and the judge’s ruling here.
Likelihood of criminal charges against Trump rising, experts say
Some ex-prosecutors call on DoJ to accelerate investigation after House panel’s allegations Trump broke laws to overturn election
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...p-criminal-charges-capitol-attack-house-panel
The likelihood of a criminal investigation and charges against Donald Trump are rising due to allegations by a House panel of a “criminal conspiracy” involving his aggressive drive to overturn the 2020 election results, coupled with a justice department (DoJ) inquiry of a “false electors” schemeTrump loyalists devised to block Joe Biden’s election.
Former federal prosecutors say evidence is mounting of criminal conduct by Trump that may yield charges against the ex- president for obstructing an official proceeding of Congress on 6 January or defrauding the US government, stemming from his weeks-long drive with top allies to thwart Biden’s election by pushing false claims of fraud.
A 2 March court filing by the House January 6 panel implicated Trump in a “criminal conspiracy” to block Congress from certifying Biden’s win, and Trump faces legal threats from justice department investigations under way into a “false electors” ploy, and seditious conspiracy charges filed against Oath Keepers who attacked the Capitol, say department veterans.
The filing by the House panel investigating the 6 January assault on the Capitol by a mob of pro-Trump supporters stated that it has “a good-faith basis for concluding that the president and members of his campaign engaged in a criminal conspiracy to defraud the United States”.
The panel’s hard-hitting findings about Trump’s criminal schemes were contained in a federal court filing involving top Trump lawyer John Eastman, who has fought on attorney client privilege grounds turning over a large cache of documents including emails sought by the committee.
Back in January, the deputy attorney general, Lisa Monaco, also revealed a criminal investigation was being launched into a far reaching scheme in seven states that Biden won which was reportedly overseen by Trump’s ex-lawyer Rudy Giuliani to replace legitimate electors with false ones pledged to Trump.
But the House panel’s blockbuster allegations that Trump broke laws to overturn the election have prompted some ex-prosecutors to call on the justice department to quickly accelerate its investigations to focus on the multiple avenues that Trump used to nullify the election results in tandem with top allies like Giuliani.
“The compelling evidence of criminal activity by Trump revealed by the committee in its recent 61-page court filing should spur DoJ to act expeditiously,” Paul Pelletier, a former acting chief of DoJ’s fraud section, told the Guardian.
“Given the gravity of the revelations, the department should consider a strike force or even a special counsel to coalesce sufficient resources to focus on these criminal attacks that strike at the heart of our democracy,” Pelletier added. “There is no time to waste now that the House committee has provided the clearest view yet into how Trump and his campaign apparently schemed to upend our democracy.”
Other ex-prosecutors say the House panel and the justice department seem poised to increase legal heat on Trump.
“A pincer-movement is emerging in the January 6 investigations of those who conspired to overturn the election,” said Dennis Aftergut, a former federal prosecutor. “The justice department and the House select committee investigating the Capitol siege have turned up the heat on Trump’s inner circle that could ensnare Trump himself.”
Trump and his lawyers have fought unsuccessfully to keep White House records from the panel on executive privilege grounds, and Trump last month sparked strong criticism by calling for massive protests in DC, Atlanta and New York if “vicious” and “racist” prosecutors in those cities probing his political and business activities “do anything illegal”.
Former prosecutors note that the justice department has at least two key criminal investigations under way that could be instrumental in bringing criminal charges against Trump himself.
The criminal inquiry into “false electors” came after referrals by state attorneys general in Michigan and New Mexico where phony slates of electors were assembled with help from the Trump campaign and key loyalists like Giuliani who has also been subpoenaed by the House panel to testify and provide documents.
In addition, the department announced this month it struck a plea deal with one of about a dozen Oath Keepers who had been charged with seditious conspiracy for the attack on Congress on 6 January aimed at disrupting Biden’s certification.
Further in another legal track threatening Trump, a special grand jury in Georgia has been convened by the Fulton county district attorney to investigate Trump’s high-pressure call to the Georgia secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, on 2 January urging him to “find” 11,780 votes to overturn Biden’s win in the state.
These federal and state investigations could gain momentum given the House panel’s allegations that Trump and his campaign engaged in a criminal conspiracy to block Biden from taking office. Some ex-prosecutors say the panel’s detailed allegations could lead to a criminal referral to the justice department that prosecutors would probably examine seriously.
“The committee’s sworn, evidence-based allegation that former president Trump conspired to overturn the election sends an unmistakable message,” Aftergut said. “The train heading toward a criminal referral to the DoJ is leaving the station.”
Aftergut in a 9 March Washington Post op-ed co written with Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe called for the attorney general, Merrick Garland, to name a special counsel to lead a Trump related-investigation as the best way to reassure the country that “justice is non-partisan, and fears of political fallout will not determine the decision on whether to bring charges”.
Other former prosecutors say the House panel’s 2 March evidence that Trump broke laws in a criminal conspiracy, coupled with the justice department investigations that are moving forward, could fuel criminal charges against Trump and his top allies.
“The seditious conspiracy charges and the newly announced investigation of fake electors indicate that the government is increasingly investigating more serious and significant charges above and beyond the violent events of the day,” said Paul Rosenzweig, a former federal prosecutor who worked on Ken Starr’s team during the impeachment of Bill Clinton.
“These developments, along with the ongoing investigation of Trump confidants like Rudy Giuliani, suggest that more charges are likely,” Rosenzweig added. “I assume that as part of the ongoing investigation into January 6, the department already has a dedicated task force looking into potential criminal charges against Trump and his top loyalists. If they do not, they should.”
Aftergut said that the House panel had amassed substantial evidence that should benefit prosecutors investigating criminal charges against Trump. “In the course of interviewing more than 600 witnesses, the committee has developed a mountain of evidence that could greatly enhance prosecutors’ efforts,” he said.
Some ex-prosecutors call on DoJ to accelerate investigation after House panel’s allegations Trump broke laws to overturn election
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...p-criminal-charges-capitol-attack-house-panel
The likelihood of a criminal investigation and charges against Donald Trump are rising due to allegations by a House panel of a “criminal conspiracy” involving his aggressive drive to overturn the 2020 election results, coupled with a justice department (DoJ) inquiry of a “false electors” schemeTrump loyalists devised to block Joe Biden’s election.
Former federal prosecutors say evidence is mounting of criminal conduct by Trump that may yield charges against the ex- president for obstructing an official proceeding of Congress on 6 January or defrauding the US government, stemming from his weeks-long drive with top allies to thwart Biden’s election by pushing false claims of fraud.
A 2 March court filing by the House January 6 panel implicated Trump in a “criminal conspiracy” to block Congress from certifying Biden’s win, and Trump faces legal threats from justice department investigations under way into a “false electors” ploy, and seditious conspiracy charges filed against Oath Keepers who attacked the Capitol, say department veterans.
The filing by the House panel investigating the 6 January assault on the Capitol by a mob of pro-Trump supporters stated that it has “a good-faith basis for concluding that the president and members of his campaign engaged in a criminal conspiracy to defraud the United States”.
The panel’s hard-hitting findings about Trump’s criminal schemes were contained in a federal court filing involving top Trump lawyer John Eastman, who has fought on attorney client privilege grounds turning over a large cache of documents including emails sought by the committee.
Back in January, the deputy attorney general, Lisa Monaco, also revealed a criminal investigation was being launched into a far reaching scheme in seven states that Biden won which was reportedly overseen by Trump’s ex-lawyer Rudy Giuliani to replace legitimate electors with false ones pledged to Trump.
But the House panel’s blockbuster allegations that Trump broke laws to overturn the election have prompted some ex-prosecutors to call on the justice department to quickly accelerate its investigations to focus on the multiple avenues that Trump used to nullify the election results in tandem with top allies like Giuliani.
“The compelling evidence of criminal activity by Trump revealed by the committee in its recent 61-page court filing should spur DoJ to act expeditiously,” Paul Pelletier, a former acting chief of DoJ’s fraud section, told the Guardian.
“Given the gravity of the revelations, the department should consider a strike force or even a special counsel to coalesce sufficient resources to focus on these criminal attacks that strike at the heart of our democracy,” Pelletier added. “There is no time to waste now that the House committee has provided the clearest view yet into how Trump and his campaign apparently schemed to upend our democracy.”
Other ex-prosecutors say the House panel and the justice department seem poised to increase legal heat on Trump.
“A pincer-movement is emerging in the January 6 investigations of those who conspired to overturn the election,” said Dennis Aftergut, a former federal prosecutor. “The justice department and the House select committee investigating the Capitol siege have turned up the heat on Trump’s inner circle that could ensnare Trump himself.”
Trump and his lawyers have fought unsuccessfully to keep White House records from the panel on executive privilege grounds, and Trump last month sparked strong criticism by calling for massive protests in DC, Atlanta and New York if “vicious” and “racist” prosecutors in those cities probing his political and business activities “do anything illegal”.
Former prosecutors note that the justice department has at least two key criminal investigations under way that could be instrumental in bringing criminal charges against Trump himself.
The criminal inquiry into “false electors” came after referrals by state attorneys general in Michigan and New Mexico where phony slates of electors were assembled with help from the Trump campaign and key loyalists like Giuliani who has also been subpoenaed by the House panel to testify and provide documents.
In addition, the department announced this month it struck a plea deal with one of about a dozen Oath Keepers who had been charged with seditious conspiracy for the attack on Congress on 6 January aimed at disrupting Biden’s certification.
Further in another legal track threatening Trump, a special grand jury in Georgia has been convened by the Fulton county district attorney to investigate Trump’s high-pressure call to the Georgia secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, on 2 January urging him to “find” 11,780 votes to overturn Biden’s win in the state.
These federal and state investigations could gain momentum given the House panel’s allegations that Trump and his campaign engaged in a criminal conspiracy to block Biden from taking office. Some ex-prosecutors say the panel’s detailed allegations could lead to a criminal referral to the justice department that prosecutors would probably examine seriously.
“The committee’s sworn, evidence-based allegation that former president Trump conspired to overturn the election sends an unmistakable message,” Aftergut said. “The train heading toward a criminal referral to the DoJ is leaving the station.”
Aftergut in a 9 March Washington Post op-ed co written with Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe called for the attorney general, Merrick Garland, to name a special counsel to lead a Trump related-investigation as the best way to reassure the country that “justice is non-partisan, and fears of political fallout will not determine the decision on whether to bring charges”.
Other former prosecutors say the House panel’s 2 March evidence that Trump broke laws in a criminal conspiracy, coupled with the justice department investigations that are moving forward, could fuel criminal charges against Trump and his top allies.
“The seditious conspiracy charges and the newly announced investigation of fake electors indicate that the government is increasingly investigating more serious and significant charges above and beyond the violent events of the day,” said Paul Rosenzweig, a former federal prosecutor who worked on Ken Starr’s team during the impeachment of Bill Clinton.
“These developments, along with the ongoing investigation of Trump confidants like Rudy Giuliani, suggest that more charges are likely,” Rosenzweig added. “I assume that as part of the ongoing investigation into January 6, the department already has a dedicated task force looking into potential criminal charges against Trump and his top loyalists. If they do not, they should.”
Aftergut said that the House panel had amassed substantial evidence that should benefit prosecutors investigating criminal charges against Trump. “In the course of interviewing more than 600 witnesses, the committee has developed a mountain of evidence that could greatly enhance prosecutors’ efforts,” he said.
Former Manhattan prosecutor believed Trump was guilty of numerous felonies
https://thehill.com/regulation/cour...secutor-believed-trump-was-guilty-of-numerous
One of the top prosecutors who had been leading the Manhattan district attorney’s investigation into former President Trump and the Trump Organization said in his resignation letter that he believed Trump was “guilty of numerous felony violations,” The New York Times reported.
“His financial statements were false, and he has a long history of fabricating information relating to his personal finances and lying about his assets to banks, the national media, counterparties, and many others, including the American people,” Mark Pomerantz wrote to Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg (D) in the letter obtained by the Times.
“The team that has been investigating Mr. Trump harbors no doubt about whether he committed crimes — he did.”
Pomerantz called Bragg's decision not to move forward with presenting the evidence to a grand jury and seeking charges "misguided and completely contrary to the public interest."
"...I and others have advised you that we have evidence sufficient to establish Mr. Trump’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and we believe that the prosecution would prevail if charges were brought and the matter were tried to an impartial jury," Pomerantz wrote to Bragg.
"No case is perfect. Whatever the risks of bringing the case may be, I am convinced that a failure to prosecute will pose much greater risks in terms of public confidence in the fair administration of justice."
Pomerantz also expressed his concerns that not proceeding in this case would "doom" future efforts at prosecuting Trump in related cases.
Danielle Filson, a spokesperson for Bragg, noted to The Hill in a statement that the investigation was ongoing and prosecutors were still working on the case.
“The investigation continues. A team of experienced prosecutors is working every day to follow the facts and the law. There is nothing more we can or should say at this juncture about an ongoing investigation,” she said.
The development comes as Pomerantz and another top prosecutor, Carey Dunne, submitted their resignations last month.
The development comes as Pomerantz and another top prosecutor, Carey Dunne, submitted their resignations last month after Bragg indicated apprehension about moving forward with Trump's case, the Times reported in February.
The resignation came ahead of the grand jury for the probe expiring on April 1.
In response to Pomerantz's resignation, Trump attorney Ronald Fischetti told the Times that his former law partner “had the opportunity to present the fruits of his investigation to the D.A. and his senior staff on several occasions and failed."
“Never before have we seen this level of corruption in our legal system," the Trump Organization said in their own statement to the newspaper.
The Hill has reached out to the Trump Organization, Pomerantz and Fischetti for comment.
https://thehill.com/regulation/cour...secutor-believed-trump-was-guilty-of-numerous
One of the top prosecutors who had been leading the Manhattan district attorney’s investigation into former President Trump and the Trump Organization said in his resignation letter that he believed Trump was “guilty of numerous felony violations,” The New York Times reported.
“His financial statements were false, and he has a long history of fabricating information relating to his personal finances and lying about his assets to banks, the national media, counterparties, and many others, including the American people,” Mark Pomerantz wrote to Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg (D) in the letter obtained by the Times.
“The team that has been investigating Mr. Trump harbors no doubt about whether he committed crimes — he did.”
Pomerantz called Bragg's decision not to move forward with presenting the evidence to a grand jury and seeking charges "misguided and completely contrary to the public interest."
"...I and others have advised you that we have evidence sufficient to establish Mr. Trump’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and we believe that the prosecution would prevail if charges were brought and the matter were tried to an impartial jury," Pomerantz wrote to Bragg.
"No case is perfect. Whatever the risks of bringing the case may be, I am convinced that a failure to prosecute will pose much greater risks in terms of public confidence in the fair administration of justice."
Pomerantz also expressed his concerns that not proceeding in this case would "doom" future efforts at prosecuting Trump in related cases.
Danielle Filson, a spokesperson for Bragg, noted to The Hill in a statement that the investigation was ongoing and prosecutors were still working on the case.
“The investigation continues. A team of experienced prosecutors is working every day to follow the facts and the law. There is nothing more we can or should say at this juncture about an ongoing investigation,” she said.
The development comes as Pomerantz and another top prosecutor, Carey Dunne, submitted their resignations last month.
The development comes as Pomerantz and another top prosecutor, Carey Dunne, submitted their resignations last month after Bragg indicated apprehension about moving forward with Trump's case, the Times reported in February.
The resignation came ahead of the grand jury for the probe expiring on April 1.
In response to Pomerantz's resignation, Trump attorney Ronald Fischetti told the Times that his former law partner “had the opportunity to present the fruits of his investigation to the D.A. and his senior staff on several occasions and failed."
“Never before have we seen this level of corruption in our legal system," the Trump Organization said in their own statement to the newspaper.
The Hill has reached out to the Trump Organization, Pomerantz and Fischetti for comment.
7 years in and this crap continues----
Trump has been a criminal for far longer than that.
So have folks like Clinton, but I went looking for your thread on her, and couldn't find it.
Then you really should go back and find my comments on Hillary Clinton. They are not difficult to find. And let's say I stated regularly she is a crony capitalist and not fit for office.
My apologies. Can you link me your thread on Preparing for Clinton's Indictment? I'm sure it has 39 pages of stuff I'd love to read.