Indictment watch.

June 6, 2023

          It has been a long and frustrating wait, but it appears that special counsel Jack Smith will secure an indictment against former president Donald Trump this week in the Mar-a-Lago documents case. To be sure, reports regarding the timing of an indictment are based on speculation. But for the first time, there appears to be objective evidence to support that speculation. On Monday, Trump's attorneys met with prosecutors, including Jack Smith, in Washington D.C.

          Such meetings are typically the final step before issuance of an indictment. Less than thirty minutes after the Monday meeting, Trump issued a statement on his vanity media platform (in all caps) that suggested Trump's lawyers had been told that an indictment was imminent. Trump wrote,

          How can the DOJ charge me, who did nothing wrong when no other president’s were charged[?] . . . . Crooked Hillary deleted 33,000 emails, many classified, and wasn’t even close to being charged!

          The meeting on Monday and Trump's reaction suggest an imminent indictment. The usually reserved Andrew Weissman (member of the Mueller team) tweeted,

A zillion stories about Trump case — but bottom line is he is getting charged and it will be in DC. And this week.

Open issues are whether others may be charged and whether they will be in DC or FLA.

          In a lucky coincidence, Andrew Weismann, Joyce Vance and others published a Model Prosecution Memo for Trump Classified Documents Case in Just Security three days ago. Weismann, et al. conclude:

The authors have decades of experience as federal prosecutors and defense lawyers, as well as other legal expertise. Based upon this experience and the analysis that follows, we conclude that Trump should–and likely will–be charged.

Our memo analyzes six federal crimes in depth:

Mishandling of Government Documents

1. Retention of National Defense Information (18 U.S.C. § 793(e))

2. Concealing Government Records (18 U.S.C. § 2071)

3. Conversion of Government Property (18 U.S.C. § 641)

Obstruction, Contempt, False Information

1. Obstruction of Justice (18 U.S.C. § 1519)

2. Criminal Contempt (18 U.S.C. § 402)

3. False Statements to Federal Investigators (18 U.S.C. § 1001)

[¶¶]

Based on the publicly available information to date, a powerful case exists for charging Trump under the federal criminal statutes discussed in this memorandum.

          To state the obvious, we don’t know what we don’t know. Jack Smith could recommend against seeking an indictment or he may be at the beginning of a lengthy internal review process. Both seem unlikely, but we have been disappointed before.

          For their part, Trump's attorneys argue that the Mar-a-Lago documents case is a giant misunderstanding caused by the National Archives’ refusal to provide Trump with a secure government storage facility near Mar-a-Lago. See Letter dated April 24, 2023 from Timothy Parlatore to Rep. Mike Turner, Chairman of House Intelligence Committee. The letter does not pass the “straight face” test.

          Incredibly, Parlatore claims that, unlike previous presidents, “President Trump had a much shorter time to wind up his administration.” Right! Because he refused to leave office and was busy attempting a coup after the election! If he had cooperated in the orderly transition of power, he would have had plenty of time to properly sort through personal items and top-secret documents.

          I close this topic with a final note relating to a defense we may hear from Trump's lawyers about the audio recording in which Trump said he could not disclose a classified document to Mark Meadows’ biographers because he did not have the power to declassify it. As Dennis Aftergut notes in Slate, it is possible that Trump will claim that he was lying about his inability to show the classified document to the biographers—because the document allegedly damaging to General Milley did not exist and Trump was bluffing about not being able to show it to the biographers. As Aftergut explains,

The problem is that lawyers can only make arguments in court based on the evidence. This would almost certainly require someone testifying as much on the stand. Trump, however, cannot take the stand to offer the story because he would subject himself to withering cross-examination.

So, we wait. But tonight, we have objective evidence to suggest that an indictment will be forthcoming in days rather than weeks.

Will California charge DeSantis with kidnapping immigrants?

          Ron DeSantis has used money from Florida taxpayers to transport migrants from Texas to California. See APNews, California officials: Florida picked up asylum-seekers on Texas border and flew them to Sacramento. The migrants were flown on a private jet to Sacramento and dropped off near offices for the Catholic Diocese of Sacramento.

          California Governor Gavin Newsom tweeted, “You small, pathetic man. This isn’t Martha’s Vineyard. Kidnapping charges?”

          Newsom’s tweet linked to a California statute that defines kidnapping as “abducting or taking . . . by force or fraud.” Per the AP story, the migrants reported that they were “promised jobs” in exchange for being transported to California. If true, that certainly sounds like an “abduction or taking” by “fraud.”

          Let’s hope that California opens an investigation into DeSantis’s criminal liability, if any, for transporting migrants under false pretenses.

Follow up to newsletter about Pride Month and fighting fascism.

          To hear Ron DeSantis describe “woke” corporations, they are pushing a so-called “radical, pro-LGBTQ agenda” on children. But if you examine the political donations of major corporations, the data reveals that major American corporations are supporting politicians pushing an anti-LGBTQ agenda. See Popular Information | Judd Legum | Substack, These 25 rainbow flag-waiving corporations donated $13.5 million to anti-gay politicians since 2022.

Per Legum,

[W]hile major corporations are continuing to spend token amounts on marketing to the LGBTQ community, a Popular Information investigation reveals the same companies are spending millions backing anti-LGBTQ politicians. The investigation found that 25 corporations have donated $13.5 million to anti-LGBTQ politicians since January 2022.

          Check out the comprehensive chart in Legum’s article!

          The NYTimes has published an article and infographic that shows the spread of anti-transgender legislation since 2021. See NYTimes, See the States That Have Passed Laws Directed at Young Trans People.

Per the Times,

This year alone, 16 states have enacted bans or significant new restrictions on some or all gender-affirming care for minors, most ending the use of cross-sex hormones and puberty blockers. On Friday, Gov. Greg Abbott signed his state’s bill, making Texas the largest state to ban transition care for minors. Another ban, in Missouri, is expected to be signed into law.

          In 2021, no states had restrictions on gender-affirming care. Today, sixteen states do and more are on the way. The states that have passed bans on gender-affirming care have been able to do so because they have trifectas that allow them to override the will of their constituents. The rapidly spreading wave of anti-transgender legislation highlights the need to contest every seat in every legislature in America.

          In some states (like North Carolina), the difference in a single seat can make or break democracy in that state. Don’t let anyone tell you that we should only invest in or contest “winnable” elections. Lightning strikes, upsets happen, and candidates surprise us. A handful of such surprises could have reduced the number of states with anti-transgender legislation from sixteen to less than a dozen. That outcome is worth the effort of contesting every seat. Tell a friend . . . or run for office yourself!

Supreme Court encourages assault on separation between church and states.

          The reactionary majority on the US Supreme Court has signaled to the religious right that the Court is willing to dismantle the separation between church and state. See, e.g., Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, in which the Court ruled that a football coach in a public school could lead his team in prayer at the fifty-yard line at the conclusion of games.

          Oklahoma legislators have taken note of the Court’s invitation and approved a request that requires the state to pay for religious education in a charter school run by St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Church. See NYTimes, Oklahoma Approves First Religious Charter School in the U.S. - The New York Times. (This article is accessible to everyone.)

          As with many other MAGA efforts to impose white Christian nationalism on all Americans, the effort was accomplished through stealth and manipulation of democratic guardrails. As explained by the Times,

After a nearly three-hour meeting, and despite concerns raised by its legal counsel, the Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board approved the school in a 3-to-2 vote, including a yes vote from a member who was appointed on Friday.

          The manipulation of the Oklahoma charter school committee is reminiscent of Mitch McConnell’s manipulation of Senate rules to place Neil Gorsuch on the Court. It is no coincidence that Gorsuch is the author of the majority opinion in Kennedy v. Bremerton—an opinion that is based on a bad-faith disregard for the facts in the underlying record.  Expand the Court!

Jessica Craven’s TikTok on the national debt.

          Jessica Craven not only writes on Substack (Chop Wood, Carry Water), she also makes TikTok videos that receive hundreds of thousands of views. Check out this version of a video on the national debt. Do Republicans REALLY care about the national debt? - YouTube. (I linked to YouTube rather than TikTok to increase accessibility for people who do not use TikTok.) Keep up the good work, Jessica!

Reader meeting in Boston on June 30 at Noon.

          My wife and I will be in Boston on June 30, 2023, at Noon and available to meet with readers of the newsletter. If you are interested in attending, please send an email with the following subject line: “Reader Meeting in Boston.” Please be sure to include your name and the names of any guests who will join you.

          We are looking for someone who can volunteer a home or conference room that will accommodate two dozen people for 90 minutes on June 30th in Boston. If you can help with that search, let me know!

Concluding Thoughts.

          Lawrence O’Donnell interviewed the Biden team members who negotiated the debt ceiling deal with Kevin McCarthy. The interview is extraordinary, and I urge you to watch the entire segment--all 13 minutes! See Last Word Exclusive: Biden’s negotiating team on debt limit deal (msnbc.com). The interview is an exemplary piece of journalism and will bolster your faith in Biden and his administration. Did I mention that I urge you to watch it?

          The three lead negotiators are Steve Ricchetti (Counselor to the President), Shalanda Young (Director of OMB,) and Louisa Terrell (Director White House Office of Legislative Affairs). The trio exudes competence, sincerity, and political savvy. If I had known of Ricchetti, Young, and Terrell before the debt crisis began, I would not have wasted a minute of anxiety over the outcome. There was never any doubt that the three experienced negotiators would land the deal.

          But what is even more impressive is their description of President Biden’s management of them during the negotiations. They were in awe of Biden’s experience and instincts. Biden spoke to them multiple times a day, even during international travel. They credit Biden’s deep knowledge of Congress and the rhythm of high-stakes negotiations for the ultimate success of the debt ceiling bill.

          The interview reminded me of Doris Kearns Goodwin’s book on Lincoln’s cabinet, Team of Rivals. Goodwin’s central thesis was that Lincoln’s genius was his ability to pick the best and brightest and meld them into a highly effective team. Although there was no rivalry among Ricchetti, Young, and Terrell, Biden’s genius is his ability to pick superb advisors and then motivate them to achieve stellar results.

          While you watch Ricchetti, Young, and Terrell, think about Trump's initial cabinet and advisors, which included Michael Flynn, Steve Bannon, Jared Kushner, KellyAnne Conway, Jeff Sessions, Betsy DeVos, Ryan Zinke, Rex Tillerson, Sonny Perdue, and Ben Carson.

          O’Donnell’s reporting once again makes clear that Biden is not only firmly in charge of his administration and faculties, he is really good at being president. Watch it! I promise that it will boost your confidence and optimism about our prospects for 2024!

          Talk to you tomorrow!

.