Donald Trump has been indicted.

Post Reply New Topic

Manhattan prosecutors will face a series of unique challenges — from security to jury selection — in being the first to bring a criminal case against former President Donald Trump, legal experts told Newsday.

The circuslike atmosphere surrounding Trump’s first court appearance offered a preview of the logistical challenges facing the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office once a full-fledged trial is launched, including protecting the former president and those tied to the case.

Trump’s legal team has said it will file a motion to dismiss the charges, but if it fails, the former president’s attorneys likely will file multiple motions aimed at delaying the start of criminal court proceedings, experts said.

That could mean the case would not go to trial until next year — possibly against the backdrop of the 2024 presidential race as Trump seeks a second term in the Oval Office.

Legal analysts note there will be unique challenges in prosecuting a former president for the first time.

“This is like a celebrity case on steroids,” former Nassau County prosecutor Joel Weiss, a white-collar criminal defense attorney at the law firm Farrell Fritz in Uniondale. “This is about as extreme as it gets, and so it's going to filter into the process in a bunch of ways.”

Delaying tactics
Manhattan prosecutors will have to contend with the prospect that Trump will seek to stall the case as long as possible.

“How long this will take is anyone’s guess, but it will surely take several months, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it took a couple of years — meaning that Trump might be able to delay any trial in this case until after the 2024 election,” University of Virginia law professor Darryl K. Brown told Newsday.

If Trump were to win the 2024 presidential election, local prosecutors would face a series of untested legal issues, University of Michigan Law Professor Will Thomas said in an online blog post.

“What happens if Trump is convicted and he wins the 2024 presidential election? Well, then we start getting into weird hypotheticals,” Thomas wrote.

“For example, a felony conviction precludes someone being enlisted in the U.S. military," Thomas said. "Does that rule apply to the Commander in Chief? Probably not. If Trump were sentenced to a term of imprisonment, could the state of New York lawfully hold the duly elected president in prison? Maybe? The list of unsettled legal issues here is long — for now, all we can do is focus on the case at hand.”

Security concerns
Acting State Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg have received multiple death threats since Trump’s criminal indictment was unveiled last Tuesday, according to news media reports.

Merchan told Trump’s attorneys in court Trump should “refrain” from posting incendiary messages on social media. The warning came days after Trump suggested on his social media platform Truth Social that an indictment against him could result in “potential death & destruction.”

“Given [Trump’s] rhetoric, about death and destruction, right out of the starting gate there will be security concerns for anybody related to the prosecution team, or any key witnesses testifying against him,” Weiss said. “Security related to this courthouse is going to be extreme.”

Weiss said Trump’s penchant for airing grievances on social media raises the possibility Merchan will impose a gag order to restrict Trump from commenting publicly on evidence provided to his defense team or other developments in the case.

Merchan alluded to the stakes involved in such a move during Trump's arraignment.

"Certainly, the court would not impose a gag order at this time even if it were requested,” Merchan said. “Such restraints are the most serious and least tolerable on First Amendment rights. That does apply doubly to Mr. Trump, because he is a candidate for the presidency of the United States.”

Jury selection
The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees all criminal defendants the right to an “impartial jury,” but finding 12 jurors and up to six alternates for a high-stakes case like Trump’s could pose a challenge in Manhattan, where active registered Democratic voters outnumber Republicans by 10-1.

“This is a Manhattan jury so Manhattanites may be more prolific voters than people in many places,” Weiss said.

“They probably have strong feelings about their ballot, so it's a real challenge for both sides … figuring out how they're going to question jurors to determine in the mind of the lawyers which way this person voted, and how strong their feelings are," Weiss said.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg (D) sued House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) Tuesday, calling his investigation into Bragg’s prosecution of former President Trump a “transparent campaign to intimidate and attack” his office’s work.

The suit, filed in federal court in New York, is the most aggressive pushback yet from Bragg in response to Jordan, who in recent days subpoenaed a former prosecutor who worked on the Trump investigation and last week asked another employee to turn over personal emails about his hiring process.

“Congress has no power to supervise state criminal prosecutions. Nor does Congress have the power to serve subpoenas ‘for the personal aggrandizement of the investigators or to punish those investigated,’” Bragg’s office writes in the suit, pointing to a case initiated by Trump that ultimately limited Congress’s subpoena power.

Bragg has also resisted efforts from Jordan to secure his testimony, arguing in prior letters that Jordan’s requests would violate the rights of those involved in the process, including Trump himself.

“The charges the District Attorney filed against Mr. Trump were approved by citizens of New York,” the suit states.

“Rather than allowing the criminal process to proceed in the ordinary course, Chairman Jordan and the Committee are participating in a campaign of intimidation, retaliation, and obstruction.”

The suit earned a swift response from U.S. District Court Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil, who declined to immediately block Jordan’s subpoena but gave the committee just short of a week to respond in court.

Bragg has yet to be subpoenaed by Jordan. But Jordan did subpoena Mark Pomerantz, who resigned from the Trump investigation about a year ago over disagreements with Bragg over the Trump case.

In a resignation letter published by the New York Times, Pomerantz wrote that Bragg’s reluctance to pursue charges against Trump was “misguided and completely contrary to the public interest.”

The suit seeks an injunction to block the subpoena of Pomerantz as well as any future subpoena issued to Bragg or others in his office.

It also notes that any subpoena would violate laws surrounding grand jury secrecy and privilege.

Jordan fired back on Twitter shortly after the suit was filed.

“First, they indict a president for no crime,” he wrote. “Then, they sue to block congressional oversight when we ask questions about the federal funds they say they used to do it.”

The suit spends also considerable time analyzing whether Jordan’s work could serve a legitimate legislative purpose – one of the requirements for backing such a subpoena.

Jordan has argued his panel must be able to review the federal funding Bragg’s office receives. The office used $5,000 in federal funding to investigate Trump prior to Bragg’s arrival, but his office says none has been used since he took the post in January of last year.

Jordan has also argued in his subpoena to Pomerantz his review is needed to “inform the consideration of potential legislative reforms that would, if enacted, insulate current and former Presidents from such politically motivated state and local prosecutions.”

In the suit, Bragg dismissed that augment and noted that it is up to Trump’s legal team to raise in court the issue of whether his prosecution was improperly motivated.

“Subpoenaing a former line prosecutor to talk about an ongoing criminal prosecution and investigation is no less of an affront to state sovereignty than subpoenaing the District Attorney himself. Chairman Jordan claims he is seeking to conduct ‘oversight.’ But he has no power under the Constitution to oversee state and local criminal matters,” he wrote.

“By definition, then, he has no legitimate legislative purpose for issuing this subpoena.”

The suit also reviews numerous social media posts by Trump in relation to the probe, including one in which the former president posted a picture of himself holding a baseball bat side-by-side with a photo of Bragg. The filing notes the post was followed by death threats to Bragg and “a package containing suspicious white powder with a note making a specific death threat against him.”

Bragg filed his lawsuit one day after the House Judiciary Committee, led by Jordan, announced that it will hold a hearing in Manhattan next week on violent crime in the city.

The panel targeted Bragg in its advisory, writing that the hearing — titled “Victims of Violent Crime in Manhattan” — will examine how Bragg’s “pro-crime, anti-victim policies have led to an increase in violent crime and a dangerous community for New York City residents.”

In an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity Monday night, Jordan said the committee will be talking to victims of crime in the city.

He also noted that the Judiciary Committee is planning to travel to other cities to look into crime. He said Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), the chair of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance, “wants to go to other cities and do this same thing.”

jim jordan needs to lose his job at the very least.

Former President Donald Trump on Wednesday sued his former lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen, seeking at least $500 million for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.

"Defendant breached his fiduciary duties owed to Plaintiff by virtue of their attorney-client relationship by both revealing Plaintiff's confidences, and spreading falsehoods about Plaintiff, likely to be embarrassing or detrimental, and partook in other misconduct," the lawsuit said.

The lawsuit, filed in Miami federal court, accused Cohen of "an onslaught of fiduciary and contractual breaches" through numerous "inflammatory and false statements" about Trump in books, his podcast and media appearances.

In filing his lawsuit now, Trump could be seen as trying to dismantle Cohen's credibility at a time when Cohen has become an important witness in the criminal case against Trump in New York.

Trump really is a job creator. For lawyers and the legal system.

And pundits.

We are going to miss the guy when he fades into obscurity. <sigh>

Not me. I'm sure I'll find anything more productive to do besides follow his train wreck soap opera.

But...but...but...
EVERYONE needs someone to hate...

I have a short list of people locally that I actually know in real life that I can direct deserved hatred at.

But...but...but...
EVERYONE needs someone to hate...