I cannot see how DOJ has an alternative but to indict trump in regards to the classified documents that were discussed by the Washington Post the other day.
Papers regarding Iran and China?! trump may say they 'belong' to him, but I have difficulty believing that he really believes that.
trump is a notorious person for 'show and tell'. He loves to show his trophies. Who has he shared these papers with? Another question I have is that as top secret as these papers are purported to be, it would seem that there had to be inside help for the Oval to check them out and not check them in; there must be rules as to how these papers are handled.
IMHO, trump is guilty of violating the Espionage Act.
I believe that the multi prong indictments of Trump if and when they occur may not sink Battleship Trump but will put him is an exposed and vulnerable position individually and politically. But the bigger problem is not Trump but the 70 million who voted for him. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. It will be these people who kill Democracy...not Trump.
I can’t ❤️ This, I can just say how sadly true. Are these 74 million just not paying attention or are they blinded by the fake gilding surrounding this failed businessman turned reality tv personality. The common man is certainly not gaining anything with his policies, if you can call personal greed a policy.
Ninety-six the bastard! I'm not an attorney, except as a fantasy player of the MMORPG "Trump - The Final Hours." I gotta lay off that stuff.
For nearly a decade, I've been howling about a law that's essentially a full-custom fit Orange Jumpsuit for tfg. "18 U.S. Code Chapter 96 - Racketeer Influenced And Corrupt Organizations" If the glove fits; and it's really a full-custom job how well it fits.
IMHO, RICO is after exactly what Trump is - a leader of a racket that participates in criminal behavior, that parasitizes the American people, a crook.
Some of the things that RICO cites are: "section 1503 (relating to obstruction of justice), section 1510 (relating to obstruction of criminal investigations), section 1511 (relating to the obstruction of State or local law enforcement), section 1512 (relating to tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant), section 1513 (relating to retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant)..."
Some of the other definitions of the scope of action of RICO are:
"an individual or entity capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property;
an“enterprise” includes any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity;
a“pattern of racketeering activity” requires at least two acts of racketeering activity, one of which occurred after the effective date of this chapter and the last of which occurred within ten years (excluding any period of imprisonment) after the commission of a prior act of racketeering activity..."
So far, RICO has covered tfg as a person, running an enterprise, that engages in racketeering activity.
What does RICO punish? "Whoever violates any provision of section 1962 of this chapter shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years (or for life if the violation is based on a racketeering activity for which the maximum penalty includes life imprisonment), or both, AND SHALL FORFEIT to the United States, irrespective of any provision of State law any interest the person has acquired or maintained in violation of section 1962; interest in, security of, claim against; or property or contractual right of any kind affording a source of influence over any enterprise which the person has established, operated, controlled, conducted, or participated in the conduct of, in violation of section 1962; and any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds which the person obtained, directly or indirectly, from racketeering activity or unlawful debt collection in violation of section 1962."
RICO is important as it sweeps the street clean. It breaks the criminal enterprise by confiscation of its capital. It takes away Boardwalk and all the hotels. RICO is set up to bust up criminals; and boy, does it fit the Trump Gangsters.
TCinLA, I don’t know how this blog works, and no offense, do you have legal experience? Also, can the House really quash a subpoena after the DOJ takes it up! Thanks
I don't have legal experience, but I do have knowledge of how things work. The House can quash a subpeona by getting rid of the committee that issued it, which the GOP certainly would do with regard to the January 6 Committee. If there's no "complaining party," there's no case.
Yes they can, and that is why this election is more important than 2024. If Republicans take over the House and Senate and do half of what they are saying they will do, it will be nothing but chaos.
I love your chickens helping to illustrate a point, and particularly when they join in as a teaching tool! They (you!) bring a brief lightheartedness to an overwhelmingly serious topic, and I really appreciate that!!
The 2016 Election was deceitful, dishonest, and knowing that Putin and Donald conspired by putting Donald in the US Presidency. Doesn't that make Donald's Presidency null and void? Since Donald was never a real President of the United States of America, then he is just like all other criminals. Right?
All the shenanigans, before, during, and now after the 2016 election must be addressed. Are we Americans going to say nothing? Do nothing? When the truth is staring us in the face do we ignore the facts? The attack on our Capitol, the stolen documents, the documents that are still missing, the love triangle with Putin and on and on.
What I particularly like about Ms. Vance's Civil Discourse on 10/22/22 is the application of law in accordance with the standards of our traditional, democratic adherence to concerns for justice. What I particularly dislike about the objects of scrutiny by the DOJ, the January 6th investigative committee, and many media outlets like PBS, MSNBC, including Dr. Vance's expert legal perspective and Heather Cox RIchardson's historical perspective and those of other knowledgable observers (whew, the long list of these opinions is congruent and coherent) -- is that "these objects of scrutiny" (Trump and devout aherents) are actively hostile and dismissive of the actions required to sustain our now admittedly fragile representative democracy. At what point does an openly fear-mongering, potentially violent, hate-filled opposition dictate an effective, narrowly bipartisan strategy to prosecute an unjust threat before an elected Republican opposition can make good on a promise to end the investigations?
Thank you, Joyce, for your logic and terrific critical thinking example of snow. As a nurse educator I’ve tried to teach critical thinking but it’s never easy. You clear away cobwebs of this messy situation we’re in. Frankly, I would have impeached Trump the first 6 months he was in office as was appalled by his behavior. I admire your patience!
Thanks JV for your gracious presence on this unfolding of “catch him if we can.”There is talk FPOTUS may try to leave the country with his recently refurbished plane. Do you have any thoughts on this possibility? I’ve always thought he’d leave the country at some point if things went too far south.
We need to differentiate among "he did it" and "the admissible evidence shows he did it" and "a jury says he did it." By 1:30pm on January 6, we all know Trump did it.
All the J6C has done is to collect and organize the evidence so that history could not be revised, and so that DOJ cannot ignore the crime.
A jury can always acquit, regardless of the evidence.
Too many of us believe it proper for prosecutors to bring the case against Trump ONLY IF it is 100% certain that he will be convicted. Yet, Republicans don't follow that rule: Bill Barr asked his useful idiot John Durham to prosecute (just for the theatre of it) cases involving the FBI when the FBI had done nothing wrong. A mobster who shoots and kills a person, might not be convicted if all the witnesses are dead or conveniently have no memory, BUT even if acquitted, it doesn't mean the mobster didn't do it, and doesn't mean the mobster is "innocent." Even though O.J. was acquitted (largely due to the racist attitudes of the police) O.J. Simpson lost his civil case which proved O.J. had killed his wife. (The standard of proof in a civil case is lower than "beyond a reasonable doubt.")
The phrase "innocent until proven guilty" is just a statement of the "burden of proof," and means that the government has the burden of proving the guilt of the defendant, as opposed to the accused defendant having to prove they are innocent. We should never say Trump is "innocent."
These explanatory commentaries are really helpful, Joyce, and I commend you for your preparation of them. I also like the new look in your MSNBC appearances. -- Dr. Jim Vickrey, Montgomery
I cannot see how DOJ has an alternative but to indict trump in regards to the classified documents that were discussed by the Washington Post the other day.
Papers regarding Iran and China?! trump may say they 'belong' to him, but I have difficulty believing that he really believes that.
trump is a notorious person for 'show and tell'. He loves to show his trophies. Who has he shared these papers with? Another question I have is that as top secret as these papers are purported to be, it would seem that there had to be inside help for the Oval to check them out and not check them in; there must be rules as to how these papers are handled.
IMHO, trump is guilty of violating the Espionage Act.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-37
I believe that the multi prong indictments of Trump if and when they occur may not sink Battleship Trump but will put him is an exposed and vulnerable position individually and politically. But the bigger problem is not Trump but the 70 million who voted for him. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. It will be these people who kill Democracy...not Trump.
74 million. More than 2016. They watched him in office for 4 years and said "Yeah! We need more of that!"
I can’t ❤️ This, I can just say how sadly true. Are these 74 million just not paying attention or are they blinded by the fake gilding surrounding this failed businessman turned reality tv personality. The common man is certainly not gaining anything with his policies, if you can call personal greed a policy.
But a lot of them left the party.
But they won’t. They can’t. It’s up to all of us and there are more of us than the Maga gang. We’ll all show them who is boss. We are 🇺🇸🗳️
Bottom line. I don't want TFG, or any of his family, to hold any public office ever again. They are clear and present dangers to this country.
Ninety-six the bastard! I'm not an attorney, except as a fantasy player of the MMORPG "Trump - The Final Hours." I gotta lay off that stuff.
For nearly a decade, I've been howling about a law that's essentially a full-custom fit Orange Jumpsuit for tfg. "18 U.S. Code Chapter 96 - Racketeer Influenced And Corrupt Organizations" If the glove fits; and it's really a full-custom job how well it fits.
IMHO, RICO is after exactly what Trump is - a leader of a racket that participates in criminal behavior, that parasitizes the American people, a crook.
Some of the things that RICO cites are: "section 1503 (relating to obstruction of justice), section 1510 (relating to obstruction of criminal investigations), section 1511 (relating to the obstruction of State or local law enforcement), section 1512 (relating to tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant), section 1513 (relating to retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant)..."
Some of the other definitions of the scope of action of RICO are:
"an individual or entity capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property;
an“enterprise” includes any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity;
a“pattern of racketeering activity” requires at least two acts of racketeering activity, one of which occurred after the effective date of this chapter and the last of which occurred within ten years (excluding any period of imprisonment) after the commission of a prior act of racketeering activity..."
So far, RICO has covered tfg as a person, running an enterprise, that engages in racketeering activity.
What does RICO punish? "Whoever violates any provision of section 1962 of this chapter shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years (or for life if the violation is based on a racketeering activity for which the maximum penalty includes life imprisonment), or both, AND SHALL FORFEIT to the United States, irrespective of any provision of State law any interest the person has acquired or maintained in violation of section 1962; interest in, security of, claim against; or property or contractual right of any kind affording a source of influence over any enterprise which the person has established, operated, controlled, conducted, or participated in the conduct of, in violation of section 1962; and any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds which the person obtained, directly or indirectly, from racketeering activity or unlawful debt collection in violation of section 1962."
RICO is important as it sweeps the street clean. It breaks the criminal enterprise by confiscation of its capital. It takes away Boardwalk and all the hotels. RICO is set up to bust up criminals; and boy, does it fit the Trump Gangsters.
I hope they can ninety-six the bastard.
Can the next Republican House quash/rescind Trump’s subpoena?
If Trump refuses to comply with the subpoena, and the House charges him with contempt of congress, can the next Republican House quash/rescind it?
Thanks Joyce. You are awesome on Cafe Insider! I wish it was daily or at least twice a week.
Yes and yes.
And I guess then the country will be screwed again as it heads for “shit-hole” status.
TCinLA, I don’t know how this blog works, and no offense, do you have legal experience? Also, can the House really quash a subpoena after the DOJ takes it up! Thanks
I don't have legal experience, but I do have knowledge of how things work. The House can quash a subpeona by getting rid of the committee that issued it, which the GOP certainly would do with regard to the January 6 Committee. If there's no "complaining party," there's no case.
Thank you very much. I think the DOJ will, on its own, indict Trump. Then the House is out of the picture.
Yes they can, and that is why this election is more important than 2024. If Republicans take over the House and Senate and do half of what they are saying they will do, it will be nothing but chaos.
I love your chickens helping to illustrate a point, and particularly when they join in as a teaching tool! They (you!) bring a brief lightheartedness to an overwhelmingly serious topic, and I really appreciate that!!
The 2016 Election was deceitful, dishonest, and knowing that Putin and Donald conspired by putting Donald in the US Presidency. Doesn't that make Donald's Presidency null and void? Since Donald was never a real President of the United States of America, then he is just like all other criminals. Right?
All the shenanigans, before, during, and now after the 2016 election must be addressed. Are we Americans going to say nothing? Do nothing? When the truth is staring us in the face do we ignore the facts? The attack on our Capitol, the stolen documents, the documents that are still missing, the love triangle with Putin and on and on.
74 million believe in “alternate facts”.
What I particularly like about Ms. Vance's Civil Discourse on 10/22/22 is the application of law in accordance with the standards of our traditional, democratic adherence to concerns for justice. What I particularly dislike about the objects of scrutiny by the DOJ, the January 6th investigative committee, and many media outlets like PBS, MSNBC, including Dr. Vance's expert legal perspective and Heather Cox RIchardson's historical perspective and those of other knowledgable observers (whew, the long list of these opinions is congruent and coherent) -- is that "these objects of scrutiny" (Trump and devout aherents) are actively hostile and dismissive of the actions required to sustain our now admittedly fragile representative democracy. At what point does an openly fear-mongering, potentially violent, hate-filled opposition dictate an effective, narrowly bipartisan strategy to prosecute an unjust threat before an elected Republican opposition can make good on a promise to end the investigations?
Thank you, Joyce, for your logic and terrific critical thinking example of snow. As a nurse educator I’ve tried to teach critical thinking but it’s never easy. You clear away cobwebs of this messy situation we’re in. Frankly, I would have impeached Trump the first 6 months he was in office as was appalled by his behavior. I admire your patience!
Thanks JV for your gracious presence on this unfolding of “catch him if we can.”There is talk FPOTUS may try to leave the country with his recently refurbished plane. Do you have any thoughts on this possibility? I’ve always thought he’d leave the country at some point if things went too far south.
Thank you, Joyce, for your informative column.
If he runs out the clock--that means scot free, right?
Again thank you for helping us understand all that going on in the Country.👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
Joyce, help me out here:
We need to differentiate among "he did it" and "the admissible evidence shows he did it" and "a jury says he did it." By 1:30pm on January 6, we all know Trump did it.
All the J6C has done is to collect and organize the evidence so that history could not be revised, and so that DOJ cannot ignore the crime.
A jury can always acquit, regardless of the evidence.
Too many of us believe it proper for prosecutors to bring the case against Trump ONLY IF it is 100% certain that he will be convicted. Yet, Republicans don't follow that rule: Bill Barr asked his useful idiot John Durham to prosecute (just for the theatre of it) cases involving the FBI when the FBI had done nothing wrong. A mobster who shoots and kills a person, might not be convicted if all the witnesses are dead or conveniently have no memory, BUT even if acquitted, it doesn't mean the mobster didn't do it, and doesn't mean the mobster is "innocent." Even though O.J. was acquitted (largely due to the racist attitudes of the police) O.J. Simpson lost his civil case which proved O.J. had killed his wife. (The standard of proof in a civil case is lower than "beyond a reasonable doubt.")
The phrase "innocent until proven guilty" is just a statement of the "burden of proof," and means that the government has the burden of proving the guilt of the defendant, as opposed to the accused defendant having to prove they are innocent. We should never say Trump is "innocent."
These explanatory commentaries are really helpful, Joyce, and I commend you for your preparation of them. I also like the new look in your MSNBC appearances. -- Dr. Jim Vickrey, Montgomery
It’s hard to fathom the amount of anger and hate in this country today!