'If you want to die in jail, keep talking': Law experts give Trump advice - Raw Story - Celebrating 19 Years of Independent Journalism
By: Raw Story
whenever trump opens his mouth, he inserts both feet...
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Lawyer Thomas A. Durkin has spent much of his career working in national security law, representing clients in a variety of national security and domestic terrorism matters. Joseph Ferguson was a national security prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Illinois, where Durkin was also a prosecutor. Both teach national security law at Loyola University, Chicago. The Conversation U.S.'s democracy editor, Naomi Schalit, spoke with the two attorneys about the federal indictment of former President Donald Trump on Espionage Act and other charges related to his retention of national security-related classified documents.
The word "weaponized" has been used by Trump, his supporters and even his GOP rivals to describe the Department of Justice. Do you see the Trump prosecution as different in any notable way from other Espionage Act prosecutions that you've worked on or observed?
Durkin: Obviously, it's different because of who the defendant is. But I see it in kind of an opposite way: If Trump were anyone other than a former president, he would not have been given the luxury of a summons to appear in court. There would be a team of armed FBI agents outside his door at 6:30 in the morning, he would have been arrested and the government would be immediately moving to detain. So the idea that he's being treated differently is true - but not from the way his supporters seem to be arguing.
Ferguson: What you have is a method, manner and means of pursuing this matter and bringing it forward to indictment that actually completely comports with the deepest traditions and standards of the Department of Justice, which would normally consider all contexts and the best interests of society.
If Trump were your client, what would you advise him to do?
Durkin: The first thing I would do is show him a guidelines memo, which we typically create for every client to help them understand the potential consequences of the charges. Under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, the consequences for Trump under this indictment are serious. My quick calculations indicate that you're talking about 51 to 63 months in the best case and in the worst case, which I'm not sure would apply, 210 to 262 months.
Whether he wants to roll heavy dice, that's up to him. But those are very heavy dice.
Ferguson: I might pull media statements that he has made in the last couple years and explain to him how they have complicated the ability to defend him. I'd put on the table to him that I need to see every statement that he is going to make in the political realm about this before he makes it. I'd tell him he's otherwise basically hanging himself.
I'd tell him: If you want to die in jail, keep talking. But if you want to try to figure out a way that brings about an acceptable resolution - a plea deal that opens the door to a lighter jail sentence than what the guidelines threaten and, possibly, even no jail time - you need to turn it down or at least have it screened by your lawyers.
Are there specific things he might say between now and a trial that could deepen his trouble?
Ferguson: No question about that. And people should understand that the things that he said already are being used as evidence of intent. From now on, the repetition of them constitutes new admissible evidence. It's not like, "Oh, I've already said it, so I might as well keep saying it."
That does not mean that he cannot offer the broad brush characterization, "I'm being wronged. This is the weaponization of law enforcement and the justice system against me, and I will be vindicated," however imprudent I might think that was. But anything that goes beyond that, and into the actual particulars, referencing the documents themselves, will just make it worse.
The Trump indictment provides extensive details of what was said and done. Do you take those as true, or as allegations that need to be proved?
Ferguson: Both. They are technically the allegations that need to be proven, but when you're speaking at that level of granularity, these are things that actually exist in proof, the proof that is to come.
The government basically raises the bar when it provides this form of granularity. The federal government is a risk-averse enterprise when it comes to these matters, so nothing is put in the indictment unless it exists in actual fact.
Durkin: If you're defending someone, you treat the allegations as true.
Can you imagine a situation with all of the facts laid out in this indictment but where they would not indict?
Durkin: No.
Ferguson: That's why we both say that in fundamental respects, this isn't different from other national security cases. These cases work from the premise that this is a fundamental compromising of the interests of the United States. And those are the cases that the government pursues tooth and nail. With so much in the public domain, and with so much of the defendant himself speaking to all of this, it almost puts the government in a position of saying, "Well, OK, if we have to, here we go."
Durkin: There's only one reason the government could not bring this case, and that's fear of violence or an attack on the republic. Once you do that, then you might as well close the Department of Justice and forget about any rule of law.
Trump knows a lot of state secrets. An angry Trump in prison has risks. If he were found guilty, what does incarceration look like for him?
Durkin: I can tell you what it would mean to anyone else. They'd be put in a hole in the wall in maximum security at Florence, Colorado, and they would apply what's called "Special Administrative Measures." Several of my terrorism clients have had those imposed on them. There's a microphone outside their solitary confinement to monitor anything that they say, even between prisoners. Their mail is extremely limited. Their telephone contact is extremely limited. And that's what would happen to anyone else similarly situated.
Ferguson: Trump's insistence on keeping talking about this creates a record that would justify isolation in maximum security on the basis that "We can't trust this man not to continue to talk. We can't trust him not to further share these secrets with people who may wish to do harm with them. The only way to avoid that is to put him in isolation in supermax where he doesn't get to talk with people, except under these extremely closely monitored circumstances, certainly isn't in a general population situation, gets to take a walk in a courtyard for one hour out of the 24 hours of the day, and the other 23 hours, leaving him mostly without human contact."
Is there a specific line he could cross that would force the government to seek to detain him prior to trial?
Durkin: I predict that if he keeps it up, and especially if he keeps suggesting or threatening violence, that the government will be put in a position where they don't have a choice but to try to move to detain him. In the real world, that's what would happen if it was anybody but him. Normally, you can't be threatening this type of stuff without being put in detention.
Ferguson: The smart play here would be for a judge to put him under a gag order that instructs him on what he may and may not say publicly. That's already been done by a New York judge in the other pending criminal case against Trump. This would be a complicated exercise in balancing First Amendment rights with national security interests.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Tags
Who is online
35 visitors
Trolling, taunting, spamming, and off topic comments may be removed at the discretion of group mods. NT members that vote up their own comments, repeat comments, or continue to disrupt the conversation risk having all of their comments deleted. Please remember to quote the person(s) to whom you are replying to preserve continuity of this seed. Any use of the phrase "Trump Derangement Syndrome" or the TDS acronym in a comment will be deleted. Any use of the term "Brandon", or any variation thereof, when referring to President Biden, will be deleted.
funny how no attorneys specializing in national security are returning trump's calls...
The fucking fat moron can't keep his big fat stupid trap shut no matter what!
Hee-hee
This really seems obvious, does it not?
One of the more curious aspects of Trump is that he seems unable to comprehend that his words can be used against him. That what he states can be used as part of a logical argument to identify contradiction and, much worse, knowledge and willful intent.
JR has deemed Trump a moron on more than one occasion ... he might be more right than wrong.
Trump is law. In his eyes and the eyes of his supporters.
that makes him a special kind of stupid
Weeeelllll... Trump raised $2M yesterday after he appeared in court.
The gullibility of my fellow Americans never cease to amaze me, Why would anybody give a "alleged billionaire" a penny for anything? these are the same type of idiots who sent money to Kylie Jenner to make her the youngest billionaire ever. They prove the old saying, A fool and his money are soon parted.
there's still somewhere around 50 million of them left for trump to scam...
Trump may be a moron, but his supporters are worse.
No arguments there.
EDIT: I pretty much said that exact same thing when he was a silly "reality" TV star.
how come alleged billionaires like the former 'president' are always begging for cash?
how many other billionaires do that??
how much have you contributed to his 'campaign'?
He seems to think "executive privilege" and immunity from prosecution for POTUS (which is more policy than law) are permanent.
he's the example of a client that attorneys have nightmares about...
That's for sure, but let's hope he keeps talking.
A sure bet unless forced to shut up.
The most basic things seem to elude the moron - 'anything you say CAN AND WILL BE USED AGAINST YOU IN A COURT OF LAW'
Trump will never spend a day in jail. It's doubtful that he will even be convicted in a court of law, since the vote has to be unanimous. He won't be elected to be president again either.
stick to the topic if you plan on hanging around...
As I understand it one thing is clear. Donald J. Trump will be tried as an adult.
Another thing is not clear. Could it be possible that his errant tirades, false accusations, threats and general un-gentlemanly conduct may in a sense be used as a defense?
However the main question remains as to whether he'll die in jail. I believe it highly unlikely. The US justice system too often when it involves the rich or famous moves like a glacier.
I agree. If convicted (and I see this now as likely) he will be pardoned or equivalent. The USA does NOT want to put a former PotUS in jail and will take extraordinary measures to avoid that.
And that will be another mistake and blow to the Constitutional Republic.
he should at the very least lose any and all perks of a retired POTUS that didn't break the law.
Why do you think that? Lock the fucker up. Far too long the wealthy and politically connected have been mostly able to avoid incarceration. Trump should be treated as if he was anybody else, tried and sentenced in the same way as anybody else.
Because I do not think the USA, as a whole, wants to jail a former PotUS.
I did not state what should happen, I stated what I think will likely happen.
I know. I did.
I would like to present the theory that people pussy-footing around with Donald Trump is what has allowed him his current level of exposure and has ended us where we are now: a nation divided by a lying, cheating scoundrel with absolutely no moral attachment to the country or its people.
The USA as a whole may not want to see him in jail, but I know there is an awfully large number of people who do.
I think he should go to prison but there may be other considerations. A plea bargain that would keep him out of jail in return for him dropping out of the race wouldnt be the worst thing in the world.
Hear, hear.
TBH, not jailing him would pretty much prove that there's a two-tiered justice system.
I fully agree.
Or at least be treated as an equal to Reality Winner.
235+ pages X 5 years each? works for me...
like a mafia boss pretending to be batshit crazy as a defense - unable to prosecute due to mental disease/or defect?
YES!
I don't know if he'll die in jail, but he will not stop talking his mouth flaps long before his brain becomes engaged.
don't know, don't care, but it will be one hilarious state funeral procession down pennsylvania ave...
... if the ankle bracelet goes off you won't need a band.