(C) Daily Kos
This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered.
 . . . . . . . . . .



Why hasn't Smith charged Trump in documents case? [1]

['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.', 'Backgroundurl Avatar_Large', 'Nickname', 'Joined', 'Created_At', 'Story Count', 'N_Stories', 'Comment Count', 'N_Comments', 'Popular Tags']

Date: 2023-04-07  

See: Find Out

I’m back in country and doing my best to adjust to a 14 hour time change. I reserve the right to pass out and get to comments later. Feeling good right now fueled by coffee and a dog that won’t leave my side while I write and unpack a few carry-ons full of clean clothes.

While I was gone, quite a bit happened in local and national news that had a few celebratory glasses raised. Some of that information was about how Smith’s investigations are going. This diary is mainly about the documents case he is investigating Trump’s handling of. I have seen a few comments expressed that Smith should file now, or should have already, a criminal indictment of Trump on that case based on publicly known information and inferences. However, I was also reading a few articles which made me think of why Smith and his team haven’t yet. I say yet because based on that same information, supported by the additional steps outlined in this diary, I think it will happen.

Appeals court rules against Trump attorney, ordering him to comply with subpoena in classified documents case (3/22/23)

An appeals court in Washington, D.C., has ruled against an attorney for former President Donald Trump, ordering him to comply with a federal grand jury subpoena to testify and provide information about his communications with Trump in its investigation into possible mishandling of documents with classified markings found at his Mar-a-Lago residence. Trump's legal team could appeal the ruling to higher courts, but a person familiar with the case says that's not likely at this point. It is likely that Corcoran could appear before the grand jury on Friday to testify about notes and exchanges with his client, Trump, about the former president's handling of classified records. CNN first reported the potential date of his appearance. Corcoran — who appeared before a D.C. grand jury once before in the probe — has come under scrutiny for his role in Trump's response to federal investigators as they sought to obtain records with classified markings taken from the White House to the former president's Florida residence after he left office. Prosecutors have said they have reason to believe efforts were made to "obstruct" their investigation into how those records were able to leave White House grounds without permission from the National Archives, which in part prompted the execution of a search warrant at Mar-a-Lago in August.

Special Counsel claims Trump misled his attorneys about classified documents: Sources (3/21/23)

Prosecutors in the special counsel's office have presented compelling preliminary evidence that former President Donald Trump knowingly and deliberately misled his own attorneys about his retention of classified materials after leaving office, a former top federal judge wrote Friday in a sealed filing, according to sources who described its contents to ABC News. U.S. Judge Beryl Howell, who on Friday stepped down as the D.C. district court's chief judge, wrote last week that prosecutors in special counsel Jack Smith's office had made a "prima facie showing that the former president had committed criminal violations," according to the sources, and that attorney-client privileges invoked by two of his lawyers could therefore be pierced. In her sealed filing, Howell ordered that Evan Corcoran, an attorney for Trump, should comply with a grand jury subpoena for testimony on six separate lines of inquiry over which he had previously asserted attorney-client privilege. In reaching the so-called prima facie standard to pierce Corcoran's privilege, Howell agreed prosecutors made a sufficient showing that on its face would appear to show Trump committed crimes. The judge made it clear that prosecutors would still need to meet a higher standard of evidence in order to seek charges against Trump, and more still to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Investigators seek to question attorney about phone call with Trump in classified docs probe: Sources (3/16/23)

Special counsel Jack Smith is pushing to question an attorney for former President Donald Trump about an alleged phone call the two held as investigators were building evidence about Trump's potential obstruction of the government's efforts to retrieve classified materials that he had retained after leaving the White House, sources familiar with the matter tell ABC News. Smith in recent weeks has pressed for a federal judge in Washington, D.C., to pierce attorney-client privilege and force Trump attorney Evan Corcoran to testify, according to those sources, about a June 24, 2022, phone call that investigators believe Corcoran held with Trump. Investigators have also sought to compel the testimony of another attorney for the former president, Jennifer Little, who has also sought to assert attorney-client privilege, as part of the investigation into the Mar-a-Lago documents, sources tell ABC News. Little has been representing Trump in the Fulton County, Georgia, probe into efforts by Trump and his allies to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election in that state. She did not immediately respond to ABC News' request for comment.

Who is Jennifer Little and why does DOJ want to go to such lengths to talk to her?

Special counsel discovers “suspicious” Trump call — and targets another one of his lawyers: report (3/17/23)

But Smith is also targeting another Trump attorney, Jennifer Little, who is representing the former president in an unrelated Fulton County, Ga. investigation into his efforts to pressure officials to overturn his election loss in the state. Smith's team has also subpoenaed about two dozen people, including members of Trump's inner circle and Mar-a-Lago staff, to testify before the grand jury, CNN reported on Thursday. Investigators are interested in what people around the resort may have seen or heard during their work duties, including whether they saw boxes or documents in Trump's office suite and elsewhere. "They're casting an extremely wide net – anyone and everyone who might have seen something," a source familiar with the DOJ efforts told CNN.

Bolded first part to info that points to Smith’s other investigation, the fake electors scheme. In the documents case, what use would these interviews be for Smith that warrant’s additional scrutiny before a possible indictment?

EXCLUSIVE: Dozens of Mar-a-Lago staff, from servers to aides, are subpoenaed in classified documents probe (3/17/23)

On Thursday, Trump’s communications aide Margo Martin, who worked in the White House and then moved with Trump to Florida, appeared before the grand jury in Washington, DC. One of special counsel Jack Smith’s senior-most prosecutors was involved in the interview. The staffers are of interest to investigators because of what they may have seen or heard while on their daily duties around the estate, including whether they saw boxes or documents in Trump’s office suite or elsewhere. For instance, federal investigators have talked to a Mar-a-Lago staff member seen on security camera footage moving boxes from a storage room with Trump aide Walt Nauta, who has already spoken with investigators. Many of the Mar-a-Lago staffers are being represented by counsel paid for by Trump entities, according to sources and federal elections records.

The reason I think that Smith hasn’t charged Trump in this case, yet, is because he and his team are still securing the information that will lead to serious charges for the serious conduct the general public has enough inference to make in the court of public opinion. Another is that by casting a wide net to nail down additional witnesses to document/box movement, Trump’s proximity, his possible orders to move or read those documents or show them to others, have additional witnesses to build a well-documented and secure criminal case. Some of them are on tape, which can job a witness's memory and clarify their own legal exposure if they lie. Third is he and his team are still fighting to secure additional high level testimony from some of his lawyers who all had direct conversations with Trump. Linked articles show it will be compelled and provided in short order.

Based on Smith’s pace the last few months, these are likely the last bits of information his team will need to indict and secure conviction. Staffers, key aides, Trump’s attorneys. It could also lead to additional witnesses who could corroborate additional crimes and pattern of behavior Trump may have committed.

DOJ has battled to compel testimony from multiple targets and witnesses, pierce several assertions of executive and attorney privileges and build a compelling and airtight case against a former president that has a formal, institutional or perceived higher bar of proof, rightly or wrongly. This has also taken time and diligence and resources on DOJs part, but it has been paying off and it has been backed up by the courts as compelling as a need to know in unprecedented ways and/or have high bars to secure.

To also circle back on the reference to that other case Smith is investigating, there was quite a bit that happened in the news on that case too in the last 3 weeks. If I’m up to it, I’ll write one on why hasn’t Smith charged in the fake elector's scheme, yet. Yet.

[END]
---
[1] Url: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/4/7/2162654/-Why-hasn-t-Smith-charged-Trump-in-documents-case

Published and (C) by Daily Kos
Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified.

via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/