Florida Shooters Network

Some might read the indictment, all 747,666 pages of it, and think--- "that's devastating"; "it's shocking"; "how could he?". Personally, I found it quite entertaining, all 897,666 pages of it. I've handled two-counts one-page Federal indictments/informations/complaints. There's a reason why the indictment has 347,666 pages...I'll explain more later.

This how the attorney-client crime/fraud exception is supposed to work:
"The attorney-client privilege does not cover statements made by a client to their lawyer if the statements are meant to further or conceal a crime. The crime-fraud exception usually applies only to communications regarding ongoing or future crimes, while communications regarding past crimes remain protected under the privilege. Criminal intent can play a role in a court's decision on whether the exception applies. The purpose of the crime-fraud exception is to ensure that the "seal of secrecy" between lawyer and client does not extend to communications made for the purpose of getting advice for the commission of a fraud or crime. Most courts will apply the exception even if the attorney had no knowledge of, and didn't participate in, the actual crime or fraud. If an accused-client is contesting culpability and does not agree to waive attorney-client privilege, the government may access attorney-client communications under the crime-fraud exception to privilege." Summarizer, Brave search - https://search.brave.com/search?q=attor ... source=web

Thing is, it applies only regarding "ongoing or future crimes". So what's the underlying crime? Think the Clinton case.

Some prosecutors and non-prosecutors like to muddy the waters so as to distract attention away from the basics. Most of the time, they get away with it. For instance, I have convinced two different Federal US Attorney's Offices, through legal maneuvering, to voluntarily dismiss filed two cases filed against two different clients. I have those Voluntary Dismissals framed somewhere, only because most Federal criminal defense practitioners have never gotten one. Fwiw, my Federal practice experience was not limited to the defense side, it's just that that other was not remunerated. That's what friends are for.

It boils down to this. The more verbiage you put in an indictment/information/complaint, the more you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. In the case at hand, the shock value is directed towards political ends. That's the basics. I'm entertained.

Feel free to ask me questions. I'll answer them if I can.

Fwiw, in other news, Kevin Costner declares in Court papers that he is homeless...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/a ... osive.html

If that is true: OMG, HOW CAN THAT BE???

See?

Btw, I've only known one journalist who was a lawyer. Graduated from law school and passed the Bar. He didn't practice law, preferred the journalism aspect, and was an anarchist/communist. Honored to call him a friend. We never argued about politics. He knew where I came from and stood, I knew where he was. No need to argue about politics.

He is (was?) a truly fascinating, complicated individual. The only person I've known that had photos of him with Mao Tse Tung, Leonid Brezhnev and also Fidel Castro. Before photoshop, of course.

OTOH, most journalists (with and without " ") today, do not know the law. And that's exactly what comes out in their writings.

"Former President Donald Trump has now been arraigned and pleaded not guilty. He was represented by two lawyers, neither of whom he apparently wants to lead his defense at trial. He has been interviewing Florida lawyers, and several top ones have declined. I know, because I have spoken to them. There are disturbing suggestions that among the reasons lawyers are declining the case is because they fear legal and career reprisals.

There is a nefarious group that calls itself The 65 Project that has as its goal to intimidate lawyers into not representing Trump or anyone associated with him. They have threatened to file bar charges against any such lawyers. When these threats first emerged, I wrote an op-ed offering to defend pro bono any lawyers that The 65 Project goes after. So The 65 Project immediately went after me, and contrived a charge based on a case in which I was a constitutional consultant, but designed to send a message to potential Trump lawyers: if you defend Trump or anyone associated with him, we will target you and find something to charge you with. The lawyers to whom I spoke are fully aware of this threat — and they are taking it seriously..."

https://dailycaller.com/2023/06/16/opin ... ershowitz/

Ricordo wrote: ↑Fri Jun 16, 2023 9:33 am

Thank you for sharing this.

You're welcome, Sir.

The military-industrial complex cuts a wide swath. Think, Chile/1973/ITT Corporation/WorldWide Leasing.

“Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you. So even for a practical, supposedly hard-nosed businessman (Trump), he’s being really dumb to do this.” Charles Schumer, January 3, 2017

Since the MIC is mentioned, I'll toss out this bit of trivia. When Eisenhower did the first draft of the speech, it was "Military, Industrial, Congressional complex." He was advised to remove the "Congressional" part because it would make the Congress more difficult to deal with, and I'll speculate other reasons, so he did.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... arges.html

What a sweetheart deal.

I wonder if being the President's son has anything to do with it?

If the information in the indictment is true, the possession of classified material isn't Trump's big problem. Lying to Federal agents is the problem. Remember, Martha Stewart didn't go to prison for insider trading, she went for lying to Federal agents. Not so long ago, a Federal employee went to prison for taking classified documents home and lying about it, forcing a search of her home.
That being said, Trump has made some truly stupid statements - saying he could declassify documents just by thinking about it, etc. Part of my duties as a nuke-weapons officer was declassifying outdated documents. The process always ended with the documents being stamped, "Unclassified", followed by burning. That process wasn't followed by Trump.
Storing classified docs in unsecured locations is also a crime. And don't tell us the Secret Service provided security. The issue isn't who provided security, it's the fact that the location was, to put it mildly, unauthorized.
Anyway, Trump repeatedly lied to the Feds. That was stupid. He tried to hide classified docs. That was stupid. He's his own worst enemy.