Trump Charged With 37 counts of Espionage, Obstruction and related crimes

[Voronwë the Faithful]

[N.E. Brigand]

Budowich has issued a short statement about his testimony today. He describes the special counsel's work as "a bogus and deeply troubling effort to use the power of government to 'get' Trump," but he says he "answered every question honestly."

Edited to add that the Guardian reported earlier today that Budowich's "questioning is expected to be led by Jay Bratt, the justice department’s counterintelligence chief detailed to the special counsel" investigation.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

As the Guardian article points out, it is significant that Bratt led the questioning, because that suggests that the questions asked of Budowich (who, for those who do not know, is the head of MAGA, Inc., the main Trump PAC) were about claims under the Espionage Act, not just obstruction.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

A couple of observations.

1) The speculation that an indictment was imminent was wrong.

2) The fact that Budowich was subpoenaed to testify in Florida rather than D.C. suggests to me that the reason that the D.C. grand jury went on hiatus was not because charges were imminent, but because they have decided that venue is proper in Florida.

If the latter is true, it is not completely outside the realm of possibility that if they bring a case it could end up in Judge Cannon's courtroom!

[N.E. Brigand]

1) The speculation that an indictment was imminent was wrong.

So it would seem, which means that Donald Trump's lawyers met with the special counsel's office Monday for some other reason.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

More from Hugo Lowell at the Guardian



And from Maggie the chief Trump apologist



Which is apparently a response from this from Trump ally John Solomon

[Dave_LF]

Plus:
.

truthity.png (131 KiB) Viewed 839 times

.
It's the *truth*; it says so right there!

[N.E. Brigand]

And from Maggie the chief Trump apologist

New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman's years-long relationship with former president Donald Trump reminds me of many professional golf players' new relationship with the Saudi-owned LIV tournament sponsor: they need to maintain the relationship or they're out of a job. Haberman has certainly published many stories that were bad news for Trump, but they typically were written to take the most positive view possible of the situation, from Trump's perspective, so that she could continue to have access to him. Likewise today you see golfers saying that yes, the murder of Jamal Khashoggi and the 9/11 attacks don't reflect well on Saudi Arabia, but nobody's perfect.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Is this true? I definitely don't know.

[Dave_LF]

If it is true, it's a pretty striking contrast to Willis in Georgia giving everyone the heads-up *months* in advance.

[N.E. Brigand]

According to Wikipedia, there are currently 15 active judges, 12 senior judges, and 3 vacancies in Florida's southern district. If charges against Donald Trump are brought in this district, is the judge selected randomly from among all 27 judges? In other words, is there roughly a 4% chance that the judge will be Aileen Cannon, who behaved so dismally last fall when Donald Trump tried to prevent the government from keeping the stolen documents they'd recovered from a search of his home?

I almost wish that Cannon gets assigned to this case, just so (1) she has to eat crow repeatedly and (2) no one can claim the system is biased against Trump. But I fear that she would find all sorts of ways to help the insurrectionist former president at least stall the prosecution until she is again slapped down by appeals courts.

Of the 15 active judges, one was appointed by George H.W. Bush, two were appointed by Bill Clinton, two including the circuit's chief judge were appointed by George W. Bush, five were appointed by Barack Obama, and five including Cannon were appointed by Donald Trump. The senior judges break down as one Richard Nixon appointee,* one Jimmy Carter appointee, one Ronald Reagan appointee, two George H.W. Bush appointees, five Bill Clinton appointees, and two George W. Bush appointees.

*One of only two Nixon appointees in the country still serving as a district judge, although the other, in Minnesota, wasn't actually confirmed until Gerald Ford was president. For that matter, it appears there are only three Ford appointees still serving, although that likely would be higher if he'd been president for a full term.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

If it is true, it's a pretty striking contrast to Willis in Georgia giving everyone the heads-up *months* in advance.

It almost certainly isn't true, though I doubt that the DoJ will given anything like the notice that Willis gave. I expect charges to be announced pretty suddenly once they happen, and I still think it will be fairly soon. Probably weeks, not months.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

According to Wikipedia, there are currently 15 active judges, 12 senior judges, and 3 vacancies in Florida's southern district. If charges against Donald Trump are brought in this district, is the judge selected randomly from among all 27 judges? In other words, is there roughly a 4% chance that the judge will be Aileen Cannon, who behaved so dismally last fall when Donald Trump tried to prevent the government from keeping the stolen documents they'd recovered from a search of his home?

I almost wish that Cannon gets assigned to this case, just so (1) she has to eat crow repeatedly and (2) no one can claim the system is biased against Trump. But I fear that she would find all sorts of ways to help the insurrectionist former president at least stall the prosecution until she is again slapped down by appeals courts.

Of the 15 active judges, one was appointed by George H.W. Bush, two were appointed by Bill Clinton, two including the circuit's chief judge were appointed by George W. Bush, five were appointed by Barack Obama, and five including Cannon were appointed by Donald Trump. The senior judges break down as one Richard Nixon appointee,* one Jimmy Carter appointee, one Ronald Reagan appointee, two George H.W. Bush appointees, five Bill Clinton appointees, and two George W. Bush appointees.

*One of only two Nixon appointees in the country still serving as a district judge, although the other, in Minnesota, wasn't actually confirmed until Gerald Ford was president. For that matter, it appears there are only three Ford appointees still serving, although that likely would be higher if he'd been president for a full term.

This Washington Post report seems to confirm that the bulk of the charges will be in Florida. In the unlikely event that it does get in Cannon's court, I wonder if the DoJ will actively try to get her removed from the case.

[Dave_LF]

I was about to ask, is there any recusal precedent for when you're asked to try the guy who appointed you?

[N.E. Brigand]

According to The Guardian, John Solomon's claim that V cited above -- that Donald Trump (via his lawyers) has been told he is a target of the investigation -- is correct. Apparently this happened last week. Arguably this doesn't contradict what Donald Trump told Maggie Haberman -- that he wasn't told he's being indicted -- because not all targets get indicted (note that Solomon said Trump was told he's a target who is "likely" getting indicted). Sometimes a case falls apart at the last minute. (The Guardian adds that Trump may have been dodging based on whether he personally was told he was a target, as opposed to his lawyers having been informed; I see that Haberman herself made the same point.)

[Voronwë the Faithful]

[N.E. Brigand]

The relevant part of Andrew Feinberg's article in the Independent now reads as follows.

Mr Meadows has already given evidence before the grand jury and is said to be cooperating with the investigations into his former boss. It is understood that the former North Carolina congressman testified as part of a deal for which he has already received limited immunity in exchange for his testimony.

A source who was briefed on the agreement claimed that the alleged agreement will involve the ex-chief of staff entering pleas of guilty to unspecified federal crimes but an attorney for Mr Meadows, George Terwilliger, denied that to The Independent. Mr Terwilliger said that the idea that his client would enter any guilty pleas was “complete bulls***” but did not address the matter of immunity in a brief telephone conversation with this reporter.

Feinberg surely reached out to George Terwilliger before publishing. I wonder why Terwilliger (presumably) chose not to reply then but reached out after publication to partially "correct" the record.

[N.E. Brigand]

And who gave Feinberg the wrong information about Meadows pleading guilty? And for what reason? It has to be someone that Feinberg believed would credibly have seen a deal between Meadows and the government.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I don't know much about Feinberg, but I can't say that I trust his reporting. I'm inclined to believe that it is, in fact, complete bullshit. (Terwilliger is universally considered a very good lawyer, though of course that does not mean that he is not lying or stretching the truth. Still so much of Feinberg's reporting is contradicted by more reliable reports or is otherwise uncredible.)

Meanwhile, Politico gives more details about how Trump was informed that he was a target of the investigation, clarifying that it was in a formal target letter (or a "target ladder" as Harry Litman amusingly says).

[Voronwë the Faithful]