Like everything else that involves The Tonka Toy Tycoon, we’re in totally uncharted territory with Donald Trump. The only even remotely applicable comparison would be with Tricky Dick Nixon. But Nixon’s sins were garden variety political corruption, hell, he never even asked his GOP senators to whore themselves with impeachment votes to get him off the hook, much less attempt an honest-to-God insurrection in order to maintain power.
So why should the first actual criminal investigation of a former President, or better yet three of them, with another civil suit to boot be in any way normal. Just a quick recap;
- Trump wasn’t even elected yet when he went under criminal investigation for his secret payoff to porn star Stormy Daniels, to shut her up a month before the election
- Trump wasn’t even in office for six freakin’ months before Robert Mueller was appointed Special Counsel to investigate possible connections between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence officers to influence the 2016 election
- A Democrat led House committee hearing in 2019 displayed to the world former Trump fixer Michael Cohen, who roasted Trump over an open fire for everything from his business shenanigans for his complicity in the Stormy Daniels payoff that got Cohen three years in jail
- Trump became only the third US President to be impeached in the House (Nixon resigned first), and the first US President in history to be impeached twice by the House
- Trump has five active cases going on at once, a civil case in New York alleging criminal behavior at his company, a criminal grand jury case in Fulton Georgia regarding 2020 election tampering, the Manhattan DA is finally about to rack him up for the Stormy Daniels case, a DOJ criminal probe for his actions leading up to the Capitol riot, and a DOJ criminal probe into his possession and conspiracy to hold confidential records in his Florida home, a different case even though it’s the same Special Counsel
Just think about it for a moment. Here we have a one term President who has gotten into more deep shit than the other 45 US Presidents combined. Think of all of the grand jury hearings, all of the evidence, all of the testimony. So how is it possible to cull out one witness and put it head and shoulders above the others? Here’s how.
Evan Corcoran isn’t just a lawyer. He’s the personal lawyer for a former President of the United States, and not only that, he was actively involved in the purloined documents case the Special Counsel wants to grill him over. Just those bare bones facts alone literally scream attorney-client privilege to anybody who has ever watched Law and Order.
But not this time. And what separates Corcoran above and apart from the other miscreants is not just the circumstances of the subpoena, as the actual written ruling that the judge filed. Any client is protected by law for conversations concerning his case. But the one thing the client can’t do is to is to use his conversations to further a future criminal act, or fraudulently conceal the evidence of his current legal difficulties. That is called the Crime/Fraud Exemption.
And that’s the rule Special Counsel Jack Smith invoked in his hearing before Chief DA District Court Judge Beryl Howell. He said that he had uncovered evidence that the communications between Trump and Corcoran were either in furtherance of a future criminal act, or to cover up the current focus of the investigation. And then he presented his evidence, and the defense tried to rebut it.
And here’s where both Corcoran as well as Howell attain legal superstar status. In her written ruling, Howell didn’t hide behind the usual safety valve platitudes in making what could only be a controversial ruling. Nothing like The prosecution has presented sufficient evidence, or The prosecution has met their burden of proof. Not Beryl Howell, the Terminator of the DC District court. She said the quiet part right out loud, The prosecution has proven that criminal acts occurred in the conversations in question. And she ordered Corcoran not just to testify, but to turn over documentation as well on six different points.
What?! Normally a judge, whether state or federal doesn’t determine guilt or innocence, unless it’s a bench trial. Their job is to ensure that both the prosecution and defense get a fair trial, and let the jury determine guilt. But without a jury to contend with, Howell came right out and said it, crimes were committed. And if that kind of a ruling from a sitting federal judge doesn’t give a prosecutor nocturnal emissions, Viagra probably won’t help.
And here’s the funny part, and it just goes to show how fucking stupid not only Traitor Tot, but his legal beagles really are. This. Isn’t. The. First. Time. Riding. In This Rodeo. Last year, before Smith was named Special Counsel, the DOJ wanted a Seize and search warrant to seize and mine Trump lawyer John Eastman’s phone for evidence of criminal activity in the fake elector plot, and another one later to seize e-mail documents from Eastman’s account on a university server dealing with the same. And in both cases, the California federal district court judge ruled that There was strong evidence that criminal acts were committed and approved the warrants. Not quite as forceful as Howell’s ruling, but enough to let a prosecutor know that he has the target in his sights.
That’s what makes Corcoran’s testimony and documents so powerful. When a sitting federal court judge flat out tells you that crimes were committed, they’re basically telling you to get the testimony and evidence, and you’re A-OK for liftoff for indictments. And telling other prosecutors that it is highly likely that crimes were committed is basically telling them to Dot a few more i’s, and cross a few more t’s, and head for the grand jury.
The DOJ started these investigations at the pace of a 3-toed sloth on Valium, but since Jack Smith has taken over, it has nudged up to the DOJ’s version of warp speed. And with the judiciary suddenly moving Trump related appeals through at warp speed as well, the evidence will come in. And with two sitting federal district court judges basically telling prosecutors, Oh yeah, y’all got some guilty mofo’s on your hands there, when the DOJ finally finishes picking every nit, I have never been more confident that they’re going to return a shitload of indictments, including Traitor Tot. Don’t touch that dial.
Damn. Is it Christmas/Hanukkah/Kwanzaa already?
LOL!!! we actually HAD that holiday when I worked for Zappos…We called it Christmahannukwanzika
Indictments – can’t happen soon enough. State prosecutors often indict first (with slightly more than probable cause) and keep investigating. Federal prosecutors wait until they have every t crossed and i dotted. I prefer the state method.
Yeah, but that “state method” invariably leads to a state appeals process (since the state prosecution will typically start in a regular criminal court before being heard by a state appeals court which can then possibly go to the state’s Supreme Court, depending on the exact nature of the crime and who’s involved), followed by the federal appeals court which can lead to the Supreme Court. A federal prosecution cuts out that bottom layer.
Isn’t the E. Jean Carroll rape and defamation civil suit against Traitor Tot now underway in New York as well?
I beieve the trial date is set for April 25. No doubt someone will correct that if I’m wrong, but it’s fairly soon.
“But Nixon’s sins were garden variety political corruption, hell, he never even asked his GOP senators to whore themselves with impeachment votes to get him off the hook, much less attempt an honest-to-God insurrection in order to maintain power.”
In fairness, that was *literally* a different GOP, one that actually RESPECTED the notion of “government” and RESPECTED the political process. THAT GOP was as appalled at Nixon’s actions (even if it did win them the 1972 election cycle–the blowback in 1974 almost cost them everything; they went into the election with 192 House and 41 Senate seats and came away with only 144 House and 37 Senate seats) as any Democrat and several top GOP leaders met with Nixon urging him to resign before impeachment proceedings could happen (and, even before the 1974 elections, the Dems had enough votes for the House to impeach and the Senate to convict–though it would have still needed at least 7 GOPers to vote “guilty” to remove him from office but, again, THAT GOP would’ve easily found 7, even if they had to fight each other for the “privilege”).