Trump Charged With 37 counts of Espionage, Obstruction and related crimes

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Oy!

[N.E. Brigand]

From the article:

Bratt then turned to Woodward and remarked that he did not think that Woodward was a “Trump guy” and that “he would do the right thing”, before noting that he knew Woodward had submitted an application to be a judge at the superior court in Washington DC that was currently pending, the letter said.

The allegation, in essence, is that Bratt suggested Woodward’s judicial application might be considered more favorably if he and his client cooperated against Trump. The letter was filed after Trump’s lawyers submitted a motion on Monday seeking grand jury transcripts, because of what they viewed as potential misconduct.

The justice department’s characterization of the meeting is unclear – a spokesperson declined to comment – though a more innocent explanation for the exchange could be, for instance, that Bratt was genuinely surprised to see the application and raised it as an aside.

I won't get into details, but this reminds me of something I once wrote in an email that I learned much, much later had been interpreted by the recipient to mean exactly the opposite of what I intended (and that this person told several other people about it, but none of them told me; I only discovered this misunderstanding by chance long afterward, to my horror). In this case, I suspect that Bratt's actual reason for saying this to Woodward was to emphasize that he knew Woodward was an upright person -- the sort of person who would make a fine judge -- and not the kind of lawyer who would screw over his client (Nauta) on behalf of the person who was paying him (Trump), which is a real thing that "Trump guys" do. I also suspect that Bratt was wrong about Woodward, who is probably just that kind of lawyer.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

While I didn't think the Bragg thing would derail the case, I thought it might delay things a little. But:

[N.E. Brigand]

V, the tweet to which you linked is showing as "unavailable," so I can only guess as to what it says.

(I'm pretty sure I know, but I leave the honors to you.)

(Edited to add: CNN says it's true.)

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Huh, Maggie must have deleted it. And I have to leave now so I can't find another one, but I'll leave this one here.

[N.E. Brigand]

Huh, Maggie must have deleted it. And I have to leave now so I can't find another one, but I'll leave this one here.

I didn't see Maggie Haberman's original post to which you apparently linked, but I'm guessing that this tweet is a corrected version of that one. And then twenty minutes later she posted a link to this rapidly updating news brief (to which she contributed) on the New York Times website:

"Trump is the first former president in U.S. history to face federal charges."

It was not immediately known what specific charges Mr. Trump is facing. One person briefed on the matter said there were seven counts.

Mr. Trump is expected to surrender himself to authorities in Miami on Tuesday, according to a person close to him and his own post on Truth Social.

Edit: I said the page was rapidly updating. Here's something that just got added:

"It didn't even take an hour for the Trump campaign to send its first fund-raising email off of the indictment. An appeal at 7:45 p.m. began, 'We are watching our Republic DIE before our very eyes.' Trump has been struggling for campaign cash, and his first indictment, in Manhattan, briefly turbocharged his online fund-raising."

[N.E. Brigand]

At that link, Maggie Haberman says that "people familiar" say the seven charges include "willful retention of documents" (Marcy Wheeler has previously noted that such a charge could also cover dissemination of documents, which wouldn't necessarily be broken out as a separate item), "conspiracy to obstruct," and a "false statements" charge. That last one puzzled me, because Trump hasn't personally testified or provided a sworn statement in this case, and Haberman's colleague Charlie Savage quickly added that it's "possible that the false statements charge is also a conspiracy charge ... To bring a conspiracy false statements charge, prosecutors would need to show that Trump and at least one other person agreed to illegally mislead investigators and that they took at least some overt action to further that plan."

Edited to note Ryan Goodman pointing to ABC's reporting that it's not just "willful retention of documents" but "willful retention of national defense information," i.e., something covered by the Espionage Act (in case that wasn't already clear).

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Maggie's original tweet contained images of the Truth Social post.

Phillip Bump has the best tweet I have seen so far.



One question I have is if one of the counts is a conspiracy count, are any other conspirators also being charged?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

My other question is, since Feinberg appears to have been right on the money on the timing of the indictment, was he also on the money about Meadows?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

One question I have is if one of the counts is a conspiracy count, are any other conspirators also being charged?

[N.E. Brigand]

My other question is, since Feinberg appears to have been right on the money on the timing of the indictment, was he also on the money about Meadows?

Earlier today, Marcie Wheeler noted that Andrew Feinberg was probably going to be wrong about the venue: he wrote in the Independent that it would be D.C., but she thought the Washington Post article about the goings-on in Miami were more reliable. (She hasn't posted or tweeted since about an hour before tonight's big news.)

Edited to thank you for that note on the docket. Would the other conspirators (if there are any) have been given the option to self-surrender?

[N.E. Brigand]

Joyce Vance thinks it's past time for federal courts to allow television cameras.

Seth Abramson, citing Evan Perez, thinks it's a uge mistake for the Dept. of Justice to let Trump control the narrative tonight. He also flags Trump's use of the word "warfare."

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I think this qualifies as a "smoking gun."

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Oh god.

[Dave_LF]

https://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-aileen- ... d=99956910

In addition to Cannon, Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart's name also appeared on the summons sent to Trump on Thursday, the sources said.

Reinhart, who was sworn in as a magistrate judge in 2018, is also familiar with the proceedings against Trump: he signed off on the initial search warrant of Mar-a-Lago last year and later ruled to unseal the search affidavit – decisions that made him the target of antisemitic jabs on the internet.

Judges in most federal cases are assigned at random. But the apparent nods to Cannon and Reinhart on the summons for Trump might actually reflect the fact that both have already played roles in the proceedings, experts said.

"If the case is being overseen by the same district and magistrate judges, that means the court likely considered the indictment to be 'related' to the search warrant and intentionally assigned it to those judges," former senior Justice Department national security official Brandon Van Grack told ABC News.

[Dave_LF]

"It is not clear Cannon is permanently assigned to the case. If she is, it's extremely unlikely it stays with her and as a last resort, DOJ will challenge her participation and win."

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Thanks, Dave. I hope Joyce right, and she is definitely more knowledgeable about this than I am, but I am still skeptical. Here is an alternative view (this is a defense attorney who has represented a number of January 6 defendants).

[Voronwë the Faithful]

ETA:

[Voronwë the Faithful]

[N.E. Brigand]

Last night I listened to a bit of Mark Levin's conservative radio talk show. Among other things, he was eager to let the public know that the Espionage Act was signed into law by a racist president, Woodrow Wilson, and that it's a law that permits questionable government overreach. The first is indisputably true and the second is certainly worth arguing. But if conservatives really believed the law was wrong, they would have said so before now.