Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

LetMyPeopleVote

LetMyPeopleVote's Journal
LetMyPeopleVote's Journal
February 6, 2023

Andrew Weisman-An insider's critical view of an investigation of Donald Trump

I watched the Sixty Minutes article and will watch Rachel tomorrow on this new book on the NYC DA investigation. I agree with Andrew Weisman that this book is a bad idea and may hurt prosecution of TFG. It was not a clear case against TFG and DA Bragg may have been right to delay
https://twitter.com/AWeissmann_/status/1622291462401433603

In his telling, the prosecutors come across as fainthearted, lacking “energy” and “enthusiasm,” and “relentlessly negative.” The team was faced with a possible first-of-its-kind prosecution of a former president, and, Pomerantz writes, the prosecutors were perhaps “a bit fearful about bringing charges against Trump,” given his well-known penchant for public retaliation. “They seemed to me,” Pomerantz observes, “to be exactly the kind of traditional, ‘let’s do things the way we have always done them’ prosecutors that kept the district attorney’s office from being resourceful and successful in white-collar cases.” Pomerantz reveals that Vance had “privately complained many times to me … about the slow-moving and ‘gun shy’ culture in the office.” Pomerantz believed the office needed a chief of staff, “a drill sergeant,” as he puts it, to “keep the team moving.” But out of the hundreds of assistant district attorneys, he argues, “there was no suitable candidate from within the office.”

Pomerantz is unfailingly polite about Vance. But if his criticisms generally about the work of the office are accurate, then the state of the long-running investigation is on Vance, not on Bragg, who was on the job for less than two months before Pomerantz resigned. Yet Bragg is scathingly faulted for not promptly greenlighting charges against Trump, charges that many had said were not ready for prime time. Indeed, in December 2021, Pomerantz and Vance brought in a “brain trust” of five outside appellate and former trial prosecutors to assess the case. That “summit meeting” occurred when Bragg was the district attorney-elect, but inexplicably no one from his transition team was invited. And the meeting did not yield a consensus that the case was strong and ready to be brought, with various participants raising serious legal and factual concerns. It is difficult to know exactly what transpired, as Pomerantz appears to fudge on the degree of consensus by saying the outside group “seemed” to agree and the “sense of the group” seemed clear. But there was no statement acknowledging an agreement that the case was solid and ready to be charged. And Pomerantz’s senior colleague walked away from the meeting saying the conversation “‘left him on the fence’ about charging Trump.”.....

But Pomerantz changes tone in a thoughtful late chapter and contemplates the issues that confronted Bragg and Vance. He lucidly describes the conundrum faced by them and the other prosecutors contemplating criminal charges against Trump. Why, he asks, had he and Vance and others been convinced that criminal charges should be brought, “while other serious and experienced lawyers had reached the opposite conclusion?” The answer focuses on the standard to be applied in bringing charges against a former president of the United States. Some have the view that if you shoot for the king, you best not miss, and that an acquittal would rend the fabric of the country, perhaps irreparably. Pomerantz eloquently lays out the counterargument: that a president should be held to at least the same standard as anyone else and that the rule of law demands it, even if a conviction is far from certain.

Pomerantz makes a compelling argument on the standard to be used in deciding whether to bring such consequential charges, but one wonders if this book risks undermining the very noble end he seeks. The DA’s investigation of Trump is widely reported to be active, and if charges are brought, this book is certainly going to be used in countless ways by the defense, including to claim selective prosecution, to try to change venues and to undermine government witnesses. If the book improperly hurts an eventual Trump prosecution, one wonders if having this account, at this time, will have been worth it.

The Stormy Daniels case makes sense in that there is a paper trail including checks signed by TFG. It appears that additional witnesses may have been lined up.

I doubt that I will buy this book but I will wait to see the interview with Rachel tomorrow
February 6, 2023

Andrew Weisman-An insider's critical view of an investigation of Donald Trump

I watched the Sixty Minutes article and will watch Rachel tomorrow on this new book on the NYC DA investigation. I agree with Andrew Weisman that this book is a bad idea and may hurt prosecution of TFG. It was not a clear case against TFG and DA Bragg may have been right to delay
https://twitter.com/AWeissmann_/status/1622291462401433603

In his telling, the prosecutors come across as fainthearted, lacking “energy” and “enthusiasm,” and “relentlessly negative.” The team was faced with a possible first-of-its-kind prosecution of a former president, and, Pomerantz writes, the prosecutors were perhaps “a bit fearful about bringing charges against Trump,” given his well-known penchant for public retaliation. “They seemed to me,” Pomerantz observes, “to be exactly the kind of traditional, ‘let’s do things the way we have always done them’ prosecutors that kept the district attorney’s office from being resourceful and successful in white-collar cases.” Pomerantz reveals that Vance had “privately complained many times to me … about the slow-moving and ‘gun shy’ culture in the office.” Pomerantz believed the office needed a chief of staff, “a drill sergeant,” as he puts it, to “keep the team moving.” But out of the hundreds of assistant district attorneys, he argues, “there was no suitable candidate from within the office.”

Pomerantz is unfailingly polite about Vance. But if his criticisms generally about the work of the office are accurate, then the state of the long-running investigation is on Vance, not on Bragg, who was on the job for less than two months before Pomerantz resigned. Yet Bragg is scathingly faulted for not promptly greenlighting charges against Trump, charges that many had said were not ready for prime time. Indeed, in December 2021, Pomerantz and Vance brought in a “brain trust” of five outside appellate and former trial prosecutors to assess the case. That “summit meeting” occurred when Bragg was the district attorney-elect, but inexplicably no one from his transition team was invited. And the meeting did not yield a consensus that the case was strong and ready to be brought, with various participants raising serious legal and factual concerns. It is difficult to know exactly what transpired, as Pomerantz appears to fudge on the degree of consensus by saying the outside group “seemed” to agree and the “sense of the group” seemed clear. But there was no statement acknowledging an agreement that the case was solid and ready to be charged. And Pomerantz’s senior colleague walked away from the meeting saying the conversation “‘left him on the fence’ about charging Trump.”.....

But Pomerantz changes tone in a thoughtful late chapter and contemplates the issues that confronted Bragg and Vance. He lucidly describes the conundrum faced by them and the other prosecutors contemplating criminal charges against Trump. Why, he asks, had he and Vance and others been convinced that criminal charges should be brought, “while other serious and experienced lawyers had reached the opposite conclusion?” The answer focuses on the standard to be applied in bringing charges against a former president of the United States. Some have the view that if you shoot for the king, you best not miss, and that an acquittal would rend the fabric of the country, perhaps irreparably. Pomerantz eloquently lays out the counterargument: that a president should be held to at least the same standard as anyone else and that the rule of law demands it, even if a conviction is far from certain.

Pomerantz makes a compelling argument on the standard to be used in deciding whether to bring such consequential charges, but one wonders if this book risks undermining the very noble end he seeks. The DA’s investigation of Trump is widely reported to be active, and if charges are brought, this book is certainly going to be used in countless ways by the defense, including to claim selective prosecution, to try to change venues and to undermine government witnesses. If the book improperly hurts an eventual Trump prosecution, one wonders if having this account, at this time, will have been worth it.

The Stormy Daniels case makes sense in that there is a paper trail including checks signed by TFG. It appears that additional witnesses may have been lined up.

I doubt that I will buy this book but I will wait to see the interview with Rachel tomorrow

February 6, 2023

Supreme Court justices used personal emails for work and 'burn bags' were left open in hallways,

The SCOTUS is badly broken
https://twitter.com/TheRealHoarse/status/1621935221900775426
https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/04/politics/supreme-court-email-burn-bags-leak-investigation/index.html

Long before the leak of a draft opinion reversing Roe v. Wade, some Supreme Court justices often used personal email accounts for sensitive transmissions instead of secure servers set up to guard such information, among other security lapses not made public in the court’s report on the investigation last month.

New details revealed to CNN by multiple sources familiar with the court’s operations offer an even more detailed picture of yearslong lax internal procedures that could have endangered security, led to the leak and hindered an investigation into the culprit.

Supreme Court employees also used printers that didn’t produce logs – or were able to print sensitive documents off-site without tracking – and “burn bags” meant to ensure the safe destruction of materials were left open and unattended in hallways.

“This has been going on for years,” one former employee said.

The problem with the justices’ use of emails persisted in part because some justices were slow to adopt to the technology and some court employees were nervous about confronting them to urge them to take precautions, one person said. Such behavior meant that justices weren’t setting an example to take security seriously.

The justices were “not masters of information security protocol,” one former court employee told CNN.
February 5, 2023

3 Chinese spy balloons flew over United States during Trump administration, defense official says

Source: CNN

A senior US defense official said Saturday there were three instances during the Trump administration when China briefly flew a surveillance balloon over the continental United States.

The “PRC (People's Republic of China) government surveillance balloons transited the continental United States briefly at least three times during the prior administration and once that we know of at the beginning of this administration, but never for this duration of time,” the defense official said.

Mark Esper, the former Secretary of Defense under President Donald Trump, told 'CNN This Morning’ on Friday that he was “surprised” by the Pentagon’s statement that similar incidents had happened during the Trump administration.

Read more: https://edition.cnn.com/politics/live-news/suspected-chinese-balloon-over-us-02-04-23/h_1f1e4d057e1aa906e5ef3b686e63527b

February 4, 2023

Trump Offers $1 Million Bond to Appeal Clinton Suit Sanctions

The Clinton RICO case was really bogus. This appeal will be fun to watch
https://twitter.com/Voter99percent/status/1621670797927383041
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-offers-1-million-bond-to-appeal-clinton-suit-sanctions/ar-AA175Lr2?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=cd064e5650b744e5aa3d658927032bdd

Trump and one of his lawyers, Alina Habba, offered to post a $1.03 million bond to appeal a judge’s order sanctioning them $937,989 for filing a “frivolous” conspiracy suit against Hillary Clinton and others.

Trump and Habba made the offer Friday in a letter to US District Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks in Florida, asking him to put his sanctions order on hold while they appealed. Middlebrooks last month ordered Trump and Habba to jointly pay fees and costs racked up by Clinton and others while defending claims that she led a vast conspiracy against the former president.

“Its inadequacy as a legal claim was evident from the start,” the judge said of the Trump’s suit in his sanctions order. “No reasonable lawyer would have filed it. Intended for a political purpose, none of the counts of the amended complaint stated a cognizable legal claim.”

The unprecedented sanctions against a former president, who has announced he is running again in 2024, were issued on behalf of 18 defendants who submitted a joint motion accusing Trump of knowingly filing a suit with bogus and unbelievable claims to dishonestly advance a political narrative.

Trump and Habba said Friday their proposed bond represents 110% of the total sanctions and isn’t opposed by Clinton, according to the filing by Jared J. Roberts, who is handling the appeal.

Profile Information

Member since: Mon Apr 5, 2004, 04:58 PM
Number of posts: 148,695
Latest Discussions»LetMyPeopleVote's Journal