The Briefing Room
General Category => Trump Legal Investigations => Topic started by: mystery-ak on July 04, 2023, 01:38:55 am
-
Litman: Trump Is ‘Toast Legally,’ His Only Escape Is a GOP President
Pam Key 3 Jul 2023
Former U.S. Attorney Harry Litman said Monday on MSNBC’s “The Beat” that former President Donald Trump is “toast legally.”
When asked about a senior campaign official for Trump, Susie Wiles, who met with DOJ investigators multiple times, Litman said, “Well, it’s pretty obvious she has some testimony to give. But what it really underscores for the legal, political link is the people who are really close to him, including Evan Corcoran, who is still involved, Giuliani is on the outs now because he wasn’t paid, but we’re talking about all the self-inflicted wounds by Trump, and now the people are running in. It was really telling to me last week, that after the deputy on elections committee that had been in charge of the false electors testified, that’s when his boss and then Rudy Giuliani came in and said, ‘Is it too late. Can we maybe give information too?’ So even as they’re the last vestige of loyalists to Trump, they’re also becoming some of the last witnesses for Smith. That’s quite a, you know, double roll.”
He added, “Just generally on the political-legal count. it seems to me and has seen for a while, he is toast legally. But he’s got this one strange escape route. If we or a Republican can win the election, and he can make DOJ stand down. That’s his only legal strategy. It’s a stra,nge one. But there is no other I think, escape route for him under the conventional legal process.”
https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2023/07/03/litman-trump-is-toast-legally-his-only-escape-is-a-gop-president/
-
President DeSantis will recommend his Pardon on the grounds 'that he has suffered enough' BUT his AG Cruz will NIX the idea.
-
IF Trump is ultimately convicted and is forced to drop out, I don’t think a presidential pardon will go over well with the public. Ford got into hot water when he pardoned Nixon.
-
I personally think almost any other Republican who is elected would pardon Trump. It would have to someone like Liz Cheney not to do that
The people it would alienate would be the far leftist. I think just about anyone else would appreciate just getting Trump off the front pages permanently.
-
I personally think almost any other Republican who is elected would pardon Trump. It would have to someone like Liz Cheney not to do that
The people it would alienate would be the far leftist. I think just about anyone else would appreciate just getting Trump off the front pages permanently.
With all due respect, that's just crazy talk, while I do believe that Trump did some good things and he has been persecuted by the left the one constant with Trump is attention whore gotta attention whore.
-
With all due respect, that's just crazy talk, while I do believe that Trump did some good things and he has been persecuted by the left the one constant with Trump is attention whore gotta attention whore.
I'm sure he'd love to, but if he lost the nomination to another Republican in 2024 who went on to win the election and then pardoned Trump, it's going to be hard for Trump to get a lot of attention. He'd be more or less irrelevant at that point to most folks.
-
Anyone else remember when "conservatives" were steadfastly against Fascist lawfare ---- instead of plotting ways and fabricating excuses to use it to help them beat a political rival the only way they can? :smokin:
-
Anyone else remember when "conservatives" were steadfastly against Fascist lawfare ----
Still are.
And Trump is absolutely afforded the assumption of innocence. This pardon talk may be a little bit premature because Trump hasn’t even been convicted yet
But the prosecution has to prove their case. We will see if they can.
-
Anyone here confident he will get a fair trial?
-
Anyone here confident he will get a fair trial?
Not without top of the line legal representation. And he needs to keep his mouth shut and follow their instructions to the letter.
-
Not without top of the line legal representation. And he needs to keep his mouth shut and follow their instructions to the letter.
Well, he's toast then Jim!
-
Not without top of the line legal representation. And he needs to keep his mouth shut and follow their instructions to the letter.
(https://y.yarn.co/8628dc58-35bf-4a55-91f2-1d76f9343281_text.gif)
(https://y.yarn.co/8e3dd278-99a6-4750-b408-bf5e23b4713e_text.gif)
-
(https://y.yarn.co/8628dc58-35bf-4a55-91f2-1d76f9343281_text.gif)
(https://y.yarn.co/8e3dd278-99a6-4750-b408-bf5e23b4713e_text.gif)
Yup.
-
Anyone else remember when "conservatives" were steadfastly against Fascist lawfare ---- instead of plotting ways and fabricating excuses to use it to help them beat a political rival the only way they can? :smokin:
Still are.
And Trump is absolutely afforded the assumption of innocence. This pardon talk may be a little bit premature because Trump hasn’t even been convicted yet. But the prosecution has to prove their case. We will see if they can.
Why are you applying standard protocols of American jurisprudence to what "conservatives" once stood as a firewall against? Do you or do you not remember when Fascist lawfare at the hand of the Federal government was considered illegal ---- regardless of the target?
Why are you accepting charges against an American citizen by the full power of the US government manufactured solely to remove a political opponent?
-
(https://y.yarn.co/8628dc58-35bf-4a55-91f2-1d76f9343281_text.gif)(https://y.yarn.co/8e3dd278-99a6-4750-b408-bf5e23b4713e_text.gif)
Are you intentionally missing the point @Polly Ticks or can I help you understand it?
-
Let's see what the juries have to say.
Trump Derangement Syndrome has led to many manic-depressive mood swings for Dems since 2016.
-
Let's see what the juries have to say.
Trump Derangement Syndrome has led to many manic-depressive mood swings for Dems since 2016.
:facepalm2:
-
Are you intentionally missing the point @Polly Ticks or can I help you understand it?
@Right_in_Virginia
Thanks dearie, but I understand just fine. It's almost as if two things can be true at one time.
-
Why are you applying standard protocols of American jurisprudence to what "conservatives" once stood as a firewall against? Do you or do you not remember when Fascist lawfare at the hand of the Federal government was considered illegal ---- regardless of the target?
Why are you accepting charges against an American citizen by the full power of the US government manufactured solely to remove a political opponent?
Typical strawman.
I don’t accept or support charges just to remove a political opponent.
I understand that your emotional bond to Donald Trump clouds your judgment. Therefore, your arguments are becoming highly erratic and irrational.
I’ve heard the same arguments when Bill Clinton was president from his supporters. And Donald Trump is entitled to the same assumption of innocence as everybody else. It is up to the prosecution to make their case why the charges were justified
Just because Trump tells you he’s a victim and is innocent, however, doesn’t make it so. Donald Trump lacks credibility but, unfortunately, so do the agencies that are charging him time will tell who is right in this.
My position is that anyone bringing a charge against a defendant has to make their case convincingly that the charge was justified. I don’t care who it is or whether or not I support that person politically, because none of that should matter.
What will you do if these charges end up having merit? My question is rhetorical, of course.
-
Typical strawman.
I don’t accept or support charges just to remove a political opponent.
I understand that your emotional bond to Donald Trump clouds your judgment. Therefore, your arguments are becoming highly erratic and irrational.
I’ve heard the same arguments when Bill Clinton was president from his supporters. And Donald Trump is entitled to the same assumption of innocence as everybody else. It is up to the prosecution to make their case why the charges were justified
Just because Trump tells you he’s a victim and is innocent, however, doesn’t make it so. Donald Trump lacks credibility but, unfortunately, so do the agencies that are charging him time will tell who is right in this.
My position is at anyone bringing a charge against the defendant hast to make their case convincingly that the charge was justified. I don’t care who it is or whether or not, I support that person politically, because none of that should matter.
What will you do if these charges end up having merit? My question is rhetorical, of course.
:thumbsup:
-
@Right_in_Virginia
Thanks dearie, but I understand just fine.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this @Polly Ticks
Thank you for your reply.
-
I have heard the saying that you can indict a ham sandwich.
But it’s making an indictment stick to the ham sandwich is where the burden is on the prosecution
The framers understood that the state can be overzealous in charging people with a crime. That’s why there’s many protections for defendants in our constitution.
Those protections for the accused in our constitution is the firewall
-
Why are you accepting charges against an American citizen by the full power of the US government manufactured solely to remove a political opponent?
I have no idea what that even means.... He was charged - that's a legal reality even if it is politically motivated. Not "accepting" that he has been charged is a a disconnect from reality. As @LMAO has pointed out, the charges now have to be proven.
That doesn't mean I agree with the charging in the first place. Even if he did commit the offenses alleged, the damage to the republic from charging an ex-President who is currently running for office for what is truly a victimless crime doesn't warrant prosecution. But it would be better if they can't even prove the case at all.
-
I have no idea what that even means.... He was charged - that's a legal reality even if it is politically motivated. Not "accepting" that he has been charged is a a disconnect from reality. As @LMAO has pointed out, the charges now have to be proven.
That doesn't mean I agree with the charging in the first place, although I'd like to see more of the evidence before assuming all of them are completely unjustified.
My official position, as of now, is Donald Trump is innocent. But I am open minded enough to change my mind if I see convincing evidence. Whether one supports the candidate or not, should have no bearing on that position. People let their emotions cloud their judgement .
The idea that Donald Trump is toast right now might be premature
-
How many times in his career, both as a property developer and as a politician, has Donald Trump been "down for the count." Too many times for me to count.
And yet the MSM continues to chase him down like Elmer Fudd going after Bugs Bunny. "We got you this time you waskelly wabbit."
Why do they do it? Simple. Talking about Trump getting harmed gets the eyeballs of their audience like nothing else.
The man is magical in the way he escapes from things. But the problem is, just getting near him is toxic. You will get stung if you are his friend, and you will get stung if you are his enemy. Rule #1 with Trump is "I survive at all costs." The sensible thing is to stay out of his orbit, but he is such a force that it is impossible to avoid his orbit if you are in real estate, golf, politics or media.
-
I have no idea what that even means.... He was charged - that's a legal reality even if it is politically motivated. Not "accepting" that he has been charged is a a disconnect from reality. As @LMAO has pointed out, the charges now have to be proven.
That doesn't mean I agree with the charging in the first place.
The motivation for and charges themselves are illegitimate ----- how can you promote that it is now up to the same corrupt government that brought them to prove them as though this is the reasonable outcome?
Do you see no path to righting this legal ship?
-
And yet the MSM continues to chase him down like Elmer Fudd going after Bugs Bunny. "We got you this time you waskelly wabbit."
Why do they do it? Simple. Talking about Trump getting harmed gets the eyeballs of their audience like nothing else.
Yup
The MSNBC audience, for example, need to get their daily dose of “Trump is finished” otherwise they’ll seek other outlets that will give them their fix
One of the “joys” of having some far leftists in the family is I get a front seat view of how the leftist minds work. I have an Inlaw that would get their information about the Mueller investigation from the Rachel Maddow show and was certain that Trump was finished. The Mueller investigation was just a formality as far as he was concerned. I asked him if he would accept Mueller’s findings if they didn’t conclude what he expected? Never did get an answer.
-
The motivation for and charges themselves are illegitimate -----
Those are two different things. I agree the motivation is political. But whether the charges themselves are illegitimate/legally flawed won't be known until we know a lot more about the evidence. I wouldn't be shocked to find out that Trump was dumb enough to commit a process crime. As in -- I don't think he should have been prosecuted for having classified documents. However, if he was dumb enough to suborn perjury, or to be complicit in making false statements to a court, then he absolutely should not have done that and may be in trouble. But there isn't enough evidence public yet to know that one way or the other.
how can you promote that it is now up to the same corrupt government that brought them to prove them as though this is the reasonable outcome?
Well, of course it is up to the government to prove them. Unless you believe it is Trump's job to prove his innocence...? As I've said, I think the most reasonable outcome would have been to not have brought these charges at all, even if Trump was technically guilty of a crime, but that ship has sailed. So the question now is whether or not the charges can be proven. That's not a value judgment, but a simple statement of legal fact.
Do you see no path to righting this legal ship?
I'm not sure what you mean by "righting this legal ship". There's not going to be some mass uprising that magically causes the charges to vanish. This thing is going to be heard in court.
There are some things the judge might do, like dismiss charges because of prosecutorial misconduct, etc., that would more or less undo this if the dismissal survived appeal. But again, we need to see more of the evidence to know whether or not there are grounds for that.
-
This is another example of, depending on your political leanings, it’s either a “fascist use of the legal system,” or “ this proves our legal system works, because nobody, not even a former president, is above the law.” Evidence be damned.
I will watch MSNBC clips and I will go and peek at left-wing blogs to prevent developing a bubble mindset. And how they’re reacting to these charges is starkly different. As with everything else, opinions are based on political leanings.
But none of that should ever matter. The only thing that should matter is the evidence. Trump has been indicted. Like it or not, that’s the reality. Now those who brought the indictment have to prove convincingly that their indictment was justified.
And I understand that our DOJ and other alphabet agencies has been thoroughly corrupted. So that factors into the equation as well
What both sides want in this issue is not a fair hearing and a fair trial. What they want is results that satisfy their political leanings
-
This is another example of, depending on your political leanings, it’s either a “fascist use of the legal system,” or “ this proves our legal system works, because nobody, not even a former president, is above the law.” Evidence be damned.
I will watch MSNBC clips and I will go and peek at left-wing blogs to prevent developing a bubble mindset. And how they’re reacting to these charges is starkly different. As with everything else, opinions are based on political leanings.
But none of that should ever matter. The only thing that should matter is the evidence. Trump has been indicted. Like it or not, that’s the reality. Now those who brought the indictment have to prove convincingly that their indictment was justified.
And I understand that our DOJ and other alphabet agencies has been thoroughly corrupted. So that factors into the equation as well
What both sides want in this issue is not a fair hearing and a fair trial. What they want is results that satisfy their political leanings
:thumbsup:
-
This is another example of, depending on your political leanings, it’s either a “fascist use of the legal system,” or “ this proves our legal system works, because nobody, not even a former president, is above the law.” Evidence be damned.
I will watch MSNBC clips and I will go and peek at left-wing blogs to prevent developing a bubble mindset. And how they’re reacting to these charges is starkly different. As with everything else, opinions are based on political leanings.
But none of that should ever matter. The only thing that should matter is the evidence. Trump has been indicted. Like it or not, that’s the reality. Now those who brought the indictment have to prove convincingly that their indictment was justified.
And I understand that our DOJ and other alphabet agencies has been thoroughly corrupted. So that factors into the equation as well
What both sides want in this issue is not a fair hearing and a fair trial. What they want is results that satisfy their political leanings
Where it gets squirrelly for me is the "prosecuting a guy for going 57 in a 55 mph zone" aspect of this. Just because something is a technical violation of the law does not mean it is proper to prosecute it. That is particularly important when there are obvious partisan political motivations.
However, it is important to see the evidence to know if he was going 57 in a 55 zone, or 97. Though I suspect it's going to be much closer to 57 than to 97.
-
Where it gets squirrelly for me is the "prosecuting a guy for going 57 in a 55 mph zone" aspect of this. Just because something is a technical violation of the law does not mean it is proper to prosecute it. That is particularly important when there are obvious partisan political motivations.
However, it is important to see the evidence to know if he was going 57 in a 55 zone, or 97. Though I suspect it's going to be much closer to 57 than to 97.
Agreed.
-
Where it gets squirrelly for me is the "prosecuting a guy for going 57 in a 55 mph zone" aspect of this. Just because something is a technical violation of the law does not mean it is proper to prosecute it.
What law and what technical violation are you referring to?
-
What law and what technical violation are you referring to?
I'm referring to the allegations stated in the indictment, and additional things that have leaked about the internal discussions on and before January 6.
As I've said, we need to see a lot more of the actual backup for this stuff before knowing if it has any technical legal merit. From the stuff I've seen, things like him continuing to possess classified documents after being told to return them may be true, but not worthy of charges. I suspect there is at least some legal merit to some of the charges given Trump's apparent need to make up weak as hell excuses like he didn't have time to go through the boxes, and there were personal items of clothing in there, etc..
But again, that's why we need to see more of the evidence itself rather than just leaks and allegations. I think those assuming either complete guilt or complete innocence before any of these facts have been aired and open court are getting way ahead of themselves.