Many Of His Own Former Lawyers Say He Belongs In Prison
Yesterday, Axios began the day by painting a picture of what a second Trump regime would likely do to America. Like the rest of his authoritarian-facing party, he is certainly calling “for a dramatic expansion of federal power” that will constantly touch all of our lives. “He wants to give the president the authority to hire and fire federal workers at will. Trump wants to fire ‘radical left’ officials who accredit universities, reward schools that abolish tenure for teachers, eliminate many college administrators and remove diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. Trump… said after he was indicted in New York that he wanted to ‘defund’ the Justice Department and the FBI. Trump wants to use the U.S. military to go after drug cartels and street crime. Trump wants national concealed carry reciprocity, which would allow people with a concealed carry permit in their home state to have that privilege in any other state.”
If former Trump White House attorney Ty Cobb is right, we won’t have to worry about Trump instituting this kind of fascism— DeSantis is another matter— because Trump will be in prison. Not for this, for the documents he stole and refused to give back. Cobb, on CNN: “I wouldn’t necessarily expand the case to try to prove the Espionage Act piece of it because there is so much evidence of guilty knowledge on the espionage piece that all they really have to do is show that Trump moved these documents at various times when DOJ was either demanding them or actually present, that he filed falsely with the Justice Department, had his lawyers file falsely with the Justice Department and affidavit to the effect that none existed, which was shattered by the documents they discovered after the search and the many other misrepresentations that he and others have made on his behalf with regard to his possession of classified documents… Yes, I do think he will go to jail on it.”
A little reminder: “Some of the information was of the highest possible top secret classification, meaning it should never have left the custody of the government.” For anyone who has followed Trump’s illustrious career there is no doubt that he sold whatever he could to America’s enemies in Russian, China, North Korea, Israel, Saudi Arabia, etc. Probably not Iran. NBC analyst and former Judge Advocate General Glenn Kirschner: “The most reasonable inference is that Donald Trump disposed of those classified documents after unlawfully taking them from the White House. To what purpose did he put them? Did he sell them to America's adversaries? Did he use them to blackmail people? Did he use them to leverage a favorable business deal in some country or another? We don't know yet… I suspect we will learn exactly what Donald Trump did with those classified and military documents. But one thing I do know... is there is no legitimate argument. There is no persuasive argument. There is no compelling argument against arresting Donald Trump promptly.”
Last week, CNN reported that the latest revelations in the documents theft case “deepen a sense that a grave political moment is approaching. An exclusive CNN report that appears to point to a core weakness in Trump’s case is reinforcing the possibility that the 2024 presidential contender is in a heap of legal trouble. Possible evidence that Trump knew that his claims that he could simply declassify material on a whim were false highlight his characteristic belief that laws and codes of presidential behavior do not apply to him. This is a factor that made his White House term a daily test of America’s democracy and legal system and may become even more acute if he wins the 2024 election.”
CNN reported that the National Archives plans to hand 16 documents over to the special counsel that show Trump knew the correct procedure for declassifying such material. This could be significant because it gets to the question of whether Trump had criminal intent, a building block of any case against him. If there is evidence that the ex-president knew he couldn’t just declassify documents by taking them away from the White House— or even with a private thought as he once suggested— his defense on the issue of records stored at his Mar-a-Lago home in Florida becomes more difficult.
In a May 16 letter obtained by CNN, acting Archivist Debra Steidel Wall wrote to Trump— “The 16 records in question all reflect communications involving close presidential advisers, some of them directed to you personally, concerning whether, why, and how you should declassify certain classified records.”
In a CNN town hall event last week, Trump falsely claimed of top-secret documents: “By the way, they become automatically declassified when I took them.”
But former Trump White House lawyer Ty Cobb told CNN’s Erin Burnett on Wednesday that the latest CNN reporting surrounding the National Archives was a sign that Smith was taking steps that could signal he may soon move against Trump.
“I think this is ‘i’ dotting and ‘t’ crossing. I think that this case is ready to go,” Cobb said.
“The simple fact is there is a process … and (Trump) totally ignored that and believes that the mere fact he took them declassifies (the documents). That is not the law.”
…If Cobb is right and Smith could be moving toward an indictment, Americans could soon be wrestling with an increasingly familiar question: What is the appropriate way to hold to account a president and presidential candidate whose core political model is rooted in breaking all the rules but whose indictment could further inflame an already deeply polarized nation?
…It may be contrary to the national interest to ignore huge affronts to the rule of law by a previously sitting president— including alleged mishandling of classified information— since questions fundamental to American democracy are in play. But a prosecution could again create a political inferno that could further damage confidence among millions of Americans about the country’s legal and election systems.
This is the treacherous brink to which Trump has again brought the nation.
"What is the appropriate way to hold to account a president and presidential candidate whose core political model is rooted in breaking all the rules but whose indictment could further inflame an already deeply polarized nation?" Appeasement, forgiveness without an admission of guilt or any sort of guarantee that the infraction will not occur again, doesn't have a great track record historically speaking. Rather than worrying about the possibility of further inflaming an already deeply polarized nation by indictment, consider how failure to indict sets a terrible precedent for future Presidents from any party, and still inflames our deeply polarized nation. The reason we have laws is so that we can all agree on what justice is. It's the ignoring …