We are getting into some interesting territory here. As you know, lawyers for Trump met at the Department of Justice this morning, and Jack Smith’s grand jury is expected to reconvene this week. So the dialogue is now turning to what may possibly happen? One alternative in these cases is plea bargaining. The essence of plea bargaining is the defendant pleading guilty to a lesser charge. Now, Donald Trump has never admitted doing anything whatsoever wrong in his entire life. He is characterologically incapable of doing so, seemingly. So where does that leave us?
1/ The smart move here for Trump is a guilty plea to a misdemeanor if DOJ will offer one & a felony with no jail time if they won't. I discuss prior precedent & how it informs DOJ's charging decisions here: https://t.co/hXuDn6bEqO https://t.co/O1SuaFdQp0
— Joyce Alene (@JoyceWhiteVance) June 5, 2023
3/ For those who dislike these possible outcomes (I would number myself in that group), it's nonetheless important to understand the prior precedent that will shape DOJ's charging decisions & any plea offers in this matter. This is Trump's best possible outcome, not the country's
— Joyce Alene (@JoyceWhiteVance) June 5, 2023
5/ Trump seems incapable of saying he's done anything wrong. To plead, he'd have to say under oath in open court that he was guilty. It'll be interesting to see if he can do that, or would rather run the risk of being convicted of felonies that carry up to 20 years in custody.
— Joyce Alene (@JoyceWhiteVance) June 5, 2023
Here are excerpts from Vance’s Substack article:
If Donald Trump was anyone other than Donald Trump, he would have pled guilty by now to the charges that are inevitably coming from the Mar-a-Lago search. Of course, if he was smart, he would have comprehensively searched and returned everything in his possession the minute the National Archives came knocking. So, this isn’t about whether he’s smart. It’s about whether he has a survival instinct and some common sense at this point.
He does not. If he did, the only smart move, after his failed efforts at deceiving federal prosecutors and his attempt to obstruct the investigation came to light, would’ve been a guilty plea. That’s the only thing that could limit his exposure on charges, some of which carry a statutory maximum penalty of twenty years in prison.
Justice Department decisions about charging cases are grounded in internal precedent from similar cases. That makes sense—as a prosecutor, you want to do your best to treat like cases alike. So prosecutors, after determining that they have sufficient evidence to obtain and sustain a conviction—that’s the “could you” question—are charged with considering whether they should indict. And one of the “should” considerations involves how DOJ has handled similar cases in the past.
The article goes on to discuss why Mike Pence was not charged, even though Trump has been raving about same on Truth Social. Then there’s a description of the above-cited CIA cases, which is most instructive.
In 2001, former CIA Director John Deutch entered into a plea agreement with the government pursuant to an information. Although most cases are indicted before a grand jury, when a defendant has reached an agreement with the government before he is charged and is willing to waive the grand jury process, the government typically charges that defendant via a document called an information that bears the relevant U.S. Attorney’s signature. After Deutch left the CIA, agents discovered he had been using his home computers, which were not configured to handle sensitive material, to store highly classified information. Deutch pled guilty to a misdemeanor and was charged with unauthorized removal and retention of 96 classified documents. In exchange for his plea, the government recommended that Deutch serve no time in prison.
In 2012, another CIA director, David Petraeus resigned and pled guilty to retaining classified documents at his residence and permitting a woman he was having an affair with to use them in connection with research she was conducting to write his biography. Petraeus lied to the FBI when they questioned him about it. The information she accessed included identities of covert officers, war strategy, intelligence capabilities, and more. He was permitted to plead guilty, like Deutch, to one count of retaining materials and was sentenced to probation.
Those sentences sound outrageous at first glance, particularly in comparison with Ford’s. Certainly, they didn’t make anyone at DOJ happy. But they recognize the practical reality that going to trial to obtain a custodial sentence in either case would have required the disclosure of highly sensitive, classified material in order to have the necessary evidence available to convict. The government wasn’t willing to tolerate the damage that would’ve done to national security. A former senior Justice Department official called the outcome of Petraeus’s case the “cleanest” possible outcome for both sides.
What crosses my mind is the possibility of the Iran document, and possibly others, being of such a sensitive nature that they may preclude a trial in this case as well.
Oh, to be a fly on the wall of the DOJ.
Nope.
“This is Trump’s best outcome, not the country’s.”
About time the country came before this malingerer, and he got the justice he’s long overdue for.
I’ll have to make time later to read the whole shebang that Vance provided a link to. I also agree with her belief that it would suck big-time (my word for it – she’s classier than me and more polite in how she puts it) if things went down this way. I also think she’d right that Trump simply won’t be able to bring himself to do it. I wonder what Mary has to say on it? I’m sure at some point we’ll be seeing her on MSNBC offering her thoughts on whether her uncle would do this.
As I said, I haven’t yet read the memo Vance took part in preparing but there’s an actual reason why legally a case could be made for Trump taking his chances in front of a jury. He’s already a criminal defendant in NY and about to be one in GA. And though we’re talking about documents right now, he might well be facing criminal charges for January 6. Why this matters you ask? SENTENCING. At both the state and federal level prior convictions factor into sentencing. If he pleads guilty, even to a misdemeanor that can be used against him in future court proceedings, especially if convicted when it comes time for a judge to hand down a sentence.
But Trump thinks everything he does is perfect. Perfect this, perfect that blah blah blah. I’ll bet he even convinces himself his sh*t doesn’t stink. So I for one don’t think he’ll even consider it. Hell, he might decide it’s time to test out his theory that he could shoot someone and his MAGAs would still vote for him on the attorney(s) that tries to convince him this is something he should do!
Given Trump’s questionable health, he could die before being convicted, much less
before serving any prison time. He’d be a martyr to his supporters.
Pleading guilty (to ALL charges, including inciting an insurrection) would end his presidential campaign and cement his place in history as a traitorous criminal. It would likely end the MAGA movement. Is Trump capable of admitting guilt? Stay tuned.
He’s lived a perfect life, except being more persecuted than Jesus. Jesus didn’t accept a plea deal so how can a blameless, perfect man accept a guilty plea? He will only accept an apology from all the evil democrats who are doing Satan’s work by hounding this perfect man, WHOS DONE NO WRONG!
Not snarky much heh Scott? ::chuckling:: I love it when you do that!
Admit guilt? Not to his dying breath. He still can’t admit he lost an election that was proven to be lost. Mark my words—he’ll be saying he’s not guilty like a broken record even after he’s in jail.
I don’t think he’s got it in him.