Podcast Summary
Focus on mishandling of classified info and obstruction of justice: Legal experts anticipate Trump indictment will focus on mishandling classified info and potential obstruction of justice, with potential charges related to intentional retention and dissemination of national defense info.
The upcoming indictment of Donald Trump, whether it's the Manhattan or the federal case, is expected to focus on two main areas: the mishandling of classified information and obstruction of justice. Mary McCord, a legal expert, is particularly interested in the former and whether the charges will include Trump's knowledge and intent in unlawfully taking and retaining national defense information from the White House and bringing it to Mar-a-Lago. Additionally, potential charges related to disseminating such information could also be on the table. The legal team will be closely watching the grand jury presentation and the potential for a plea deal.
Trump under investigation for mishandling classified info: Trump faces potential felony charges for unlawfully retaining and disseminating classified documents, with complications due to his former presidency, and potential discovery of conspirators and obstruction of justice.
Former President Trump is under investigation for potential mishandling of classified information, including the unlawful retention and dissemination of such documents. The unlawful dissemination of classified information is a more serious offense than unlawful retention, and it carries the risk of improper dissemination to unauthorized individuals. Trump's case is complicated by the fact that he was the president at the time of the alleged taking, which could provide him with potential defenses. The investigation may also uncover evidence of conspirators and obstruction of justice charges. The case is expected to be charged in Washington D.C., and the outcome could include sentencing for felony charges related to mishandling of classified information.
Possible venue change for Trump trial based on jury pools: Trump's legal team may move trial for perceived favorable jury, statute allows for multiple charges, 'national defense information' doesn't require classification
The upcoming trial of Donald Trump, if it occurs in Washington D.C., could potentially be moved by Trump's legal team to a more favorable venue based on perceived jury pools. The speed of the trial is crucial for both Trump and the public's interest in clearing his name and resolving the case in a timely manner. The statute (18 US code 793) being used in this case, which deals with mishandling of national defense information, can result in multiple charges if there are separate instances or methods of committing the offense. The term "national defense information" in the statute refers to classified information in most cases, but it doesn't have to be classified for the information to fall under the statute. The distinction between the two is important for the trial's outcome.
Understanding NDI vs Classified Information: Mishandling National Defense Information (NDI) and classified information can result in different legal outcomes. NDI is closely held defense info, while classified info is sensitive gov't data. Dissemination of communication intel systems info could lead to additional charges.
The discussion revolves around the difference between National Defense Information (NDI) and classified information, and the implications for potential legal charges in the context of handling sensitive government information. NDI refers to information related to national defense that is closely held and protected by the government, while classified information specifically refers to information that has been classified by the government due to its sensitivity and potential harm to national security if disclosed. The discussion also touches upon the possibility of charges related to the dissemination or sharing of classified communication intelligence systems information. While an NDI defense might not require the defendant to say much, a classified information charge could potentially lead to more complex legal proceedings if there are witnesses testifying to the contrary. The obstruction charge could also be significant, particularly if the indictment is detailed and speaks to the specific actions taken. Overall, the conversation highlights the importance of understanding the nuances between different types of sensitive government information and the potential legal consequences for their handling.
Public investigations vs private declinations: DOJ handling of investigations varies based on publicity. Public cases may result in letters to targets' counsel, while private cases remain confidential.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) handling of investigations and declinations of charges can vary greatly depending on the public nature of the investigation. In cases where an investigation is highly publicized, such as those involving former President Donald Trump or high-profile figures, the DOJ may choose to issue a letter to the target's counsel announcing the closure of the investigation without charges. This allows the target to make the letter public and potentially counteract any negative publicity from the investigation. However, in the case of Trump, the DOJ discovered that not all responsive documents were provided during the initial search, and there were reports of potential lying and lack of cooperation. These findings are in stark contrast to the investigation into Vice President Mike Pence, which was closed without charges and a public statement was made. The public nature of the Trump investigation required this transparency to maintain public trust in the DOJ's impartiality.
The role of grand juries in closing investigations: Maintaining neutrality and adhering to procedure during investigations and the grand jury process are crucial for upholding the rule of law and public trust.
The way the FBI and Department of Justice handle the closing of investigations without filing charges is crucial for maintaining public trust and upholding the rule of law. The comparison between the handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation and the ongoing investigation into Donald Trump serves as a stark reminder of the importance of neutrality and adherence to procedure in these situations. During long-term investigations, such as organized crime cases or those conducted by a special counsel, the grand jury process plays a significant role. Before presenting charges, there is a summing up and reminding of the evidence for the proposed charges, and the grand jurors are informed of the elements of the proposed charges and given jury instructions. They can ask questions and deliberate in private, without any outside influence. In the federal system, grand juries can consider hearsay and various types of evidence, unlike in New York. The handling of investigations and the role of the grand jury in the justice system demonstrate the importance of maintaining neutrality, adhering to procedure, and allowing the facts to guide decision-making. The recent events serve as a reminder of the need for these principles to be upheld, regardless of the public's opinions or preferences.
Grand Jury vs Regular Jury: Key Differences: Grand juries have the power to request additional evidence or witnesses, allowing for a more comprehensive investigation before reaching a decision.
The grand jury process differs from a regular jury trial in several ways. While the closing argument is presented solely by the prosecutor, the grand jury has the power to request additional evidence or witnesses before making their decision. They can also ask to review evidence presented through subpoenas. This is particularly important in cases where the investigation has lasted for an extended period. The grand jury may be in the process of deliberating and requesting more evidence or instructions, which could result in a summation or the call for additional witnesses. This flexibility allows the grand jury to ensure a thorough examination of the case before making their decision.
Mar-a-Lago grand jury may decide on charges against Trump: Historically, cases involving mishandling of national defense info result in plea deals for senior officials, but the outcome of the Mar-a-Lago case depends on specific facts and circumstances.
The grand jury in the Mar-a-Lago case may be preparing to make a decision on potential charges against Donald Trump, as defense counsel has reportedly written a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland expressing concerns over the handling of the case. Historically, cases involving mishandling of national defense information have resulted in plea agreements, but the outcome of such cases can be influenced by various factors, including the severity of the offense and the individual's position of power. For instance, previous cases involving improper retention of documents, such as those involving David Petraeus and Sandy Berger, have resulted in lenient plea deals for senior officials despite their egregious actions. However, it's important to note that each case is unique, and the outcome of the Mar-a-Lago case will depend on the specific facts and circumstances involved.
Trump unlikely to admit guilt or take plea deal: Despite potential plea offers, Trump's political nature makes admission of guilt unlikely, potentially derailing the legal process
The former president, Donald Trump, is unlikely to admit guilt or take a plea deal, even if offered one. This is due to his political nature of denying reality and facts. The government may consider making an offer if Trump's attorneys express interest, but the likelihood of Trump accepting such an offer is low. An Alford plea, where a defendant acknowledges the government has enough evidence for a conviction but does not admit guilt, is also unlikely. The focus is on accountability, fairness, and due process, but offering a plea only for Trump to continue denying wrongdoing seems unnecessary. The process of bringing an indictment and arraignment could be derailed if Trump reneges on a plea offer, making it a risky proposition for both parties.
Discussions between defense and prosecution in Trump trial: The Trump trial involves extensive discussions between defense and prosecution, but it doesn't indicate Trump's willingness to accept an offer. The trial raises key issues and will impact the outcome.
The ongoing trial of Donald Trump is expected to involve extensive discussions between defense counsel and the prosecution. These discussions are not necessarily indicative of Trump's willingness to accept an offer, but rather a part of defense counsel's job to gather as much information as possible to present to their client. The trial is anticipated to raise several key issues, and it will be intriguing to observe which of these issues come to fruition and the implications of the prosecutorial choices made. Mary and Andrew, who are following the trial closely, are eagerly awaiting its outcome and will keep their listeners updated. The trial is likely to interrupt their vacation, and they encourage listeners to stay tuned for more developments. If you have any questions, you can leave a voice mail or email the show. The senior producer for the show is Alicas Conley, and the executive producer is Rebecca Cutler. The trial of Donald Trump is available to listen to on various podcast platforms.