Upon the conclusion of a special counsel’s investigation into the mishandling of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago resort, a grand jury elected to indict former President Donald J Trump.
It is the first time in the history of the United States of America, a former president is scheduled to be arrested by the Federal government, the population of which formally elected him to lead. In addition, it is the first time in the history of the country that a former president becomes the target of a Federal indictment.
On Tuesday next week Trump is required to appear in Miami, Florida, for his arrest prior to an appearance in Federal court for arraignment. At the arraignment Trump is required to enter a plea in regards to the charges.
Yesterday the Federal grand jury concluded after hearing testimony by a former spokesman for Trump, Taylor Budowich. Budowich, who now heads the pro-Trump super PAC Make America Great Again, said on Twitter that he “fulfilled a legal obligation to testify in front of a federal grand jury,” he said. “I answered every question honestly.”
Budowich called Smith’s investigation a “bogus and deeply troubling effort to use the power of the government to ‘get’ Trump,” but didn’t say what questions prosecutors asked on Wednesday. Budowich’s statements are in line with previous statements made in regards to more significant allegations than the mere mishandling of documents.
In regards to a ruling issued by a judge in Orange County, California regarding Trump’s act of contempt of Congress, Budowich, as according to an article published by CNN on March 23rd, 2023, is quoted as responding with a denunciation of its absurdity.
“This absurd and baseless ruling by a Clinton-appointed Judge in California,” he said at the time, “is just another example of how the left is weaponizing every branch of government against President Trump.”
Budowich’s theory of a government conspiracy to deprive Trump of his rights is completely baseless, given the fact that a Federal judge has already ruled that Trump ‘more than likely’ engaged in an act of contempt of Congress on January 6th, 2021.
Attorney General Merrick Garland tapped Jack Smith to investigate Trump both for keeping classified records at his residence in his Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Florida, and his suspected efforts to conceal those documents and prevent access to them by government officials seeking their return. The seven charges relate to the entirety of Trump’s behavior from the end of his term as president to the present day. The charges include false statements, conspiracy to obstruct, willfully retaining documents in violation of the Espionage Act.
It is second time Trump has been indicted. Earlier this year, a grand jury in New York indicted Trump on state charges for allegedly falsifying business records related to hush money payments to women who said they have sexual trysts with him, expect these charges were not Federal but based upon New York’s laws.
Jack Smith filed the indictment in Miami, Florida, the venue where the allegations of Trump’s violation of law appear to have occurred. Prosecutors such as Smith weighed the possibility of filing the case in Miami, Florida, or Washington D.C., where a separate grand jury has conducted the majority of the documents probe in recent months.
The selection of Miami, Florida, however, has given rise to wide speculation on its implications for the case’s outcome. In article published by the Wall Street Journal on June 8th, 2023 entitled, “Florida Is Seen As Likely Venue If Trump Charged,” the authors explain how the choice of venue is deliberate.
“Bringing a case in Florida would help avoid arguments from Trump’s lawyers he would be deprived a fair trail by Washington jurors, whom they perceive as skewing [Democracy], legal experts said.
“A prosecution in Florida,” the authors continue, “would be ‘an opportunity for the DOJ to say, ‘we have a strong case, we’re going to bring this on your home turf.’”
Smith’s investigation hinges upon key pieces of evidence, including an audio recording in which Trump acknowledged he kept a classified Pentagon document about a potential attack on Iran. Article II of the Constitution of the United States of America, however, affords elected presidents broad immunities, along the lines of which the prosecution must delineate for the sake of clarifying the exact time in which Trump’s conduct ceased to fall under constitutionally protected privileges.
In a post on his social media platform Truth Social, Trump said: “The corrupt Biden administration has informed my attorneys that I have been indicted, seemingly over the Boxes Hoax.”
In addition to the post, Trump immediately launched an email campaign, calling upon his donors to increase donations for his presidential campaign.The filing of a Federal indictment does not in any way prevent a candidate in a presidential election from continuing his or her campaign.
It is unlikely that Trump is scheduled to be fully prosecuted prior to the beginning of the 2024 presidential elections. It is widely expected that he continue his bid for the presidency in 2024. None of the GOP contenders—Mike Pence, Chris Christie, Asa Hutchinson, or Nikki Haley— for the nomination appear to register a competitive edge against Trump in recent polls. It could very well be the case that Trump clinches the GOP nomination, despite the pending indictment.
The fact that Trump is not the target of an indictment for the more than six charges of insurrection the Select Committee on January 6th issued in November, 2022, shortly before the Biden administration unilaterally imposed an undesirable contract on railway workers preparing to strike, is an undeniable failure on the part of the Department of Justice.
In addition, Trump is likely to cry foul against the DOJ for its decision to indict him over either former Vice President Mike Pence, who is the subject of an investigation by a special counsel for mishandling classified documents, or President Biden, whose controversial mishandling of classified documents included a slip of the tongue (i.e., a false statement).
It is important to mention that the failure to prosecute Biden, whose extremely corrupt administration has sought regime change for a nuclear armed Putin amidst an extremely expensive, deadly, catastrophic failure of fascist infested Ukrainian armed forces completely under the control of the Pentagon, is not only a reflection of bias, prejudice, or partiality but a reflection of the DOJ’s commitment to the war abroad without any attempt to ensure democracy at home.
It is anti-Constitutional for Biden to wage war abroad without the approval of Congress. The fact that Ukrainian armed forces are undeniably a NATO proxy force is no excuse against the requirement. It is all the more reason to ensure compliance with Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution of the United States of America.
Politico, for instance, recently explained how Biden’s administration hinges upon the success of Ukraine’s ‘counteroffensive,’ as stated in an article entitled, “White House anxiously watches Ukraine’s counteroffensive, seeing the war and Biden’s reputation at stake.” Apart from Ukraine’s faulted “small counteroffensive” operations registering the destruction of German Leopard tanks, as reported by Al Jazeera from June 5th, 2023 in an article entitled, “وزارة الدفاع الروسي : دمرنا ٨ دبابات ليبارد يقاتل بها الاوكرانيون واحقنا بهم خسائر فادحة,” the Biden administration, whose prospects for success with the more than 13 brigades, as described in Texeira’s Pentagon leaks, trained by NATO is altogether dubious after the fall of Bakhmut, is embroiled in a crisis not least of all for the war but for his mishandling of documents.
It is not merely the fact that the crime is the concealment of secrets, whose protection the DOJ seeks, from the American people. The American people have a right to be free from presidents whose activity—be it the mishandling of documents or an unauthorized declaration of war—conforms with American law as the primary basis for democracy.
Biden, who is unlikely to become the target of a Federal indictment for the mishandling of documents, is, nonetheless, criminal, albeit less criminal than Trump. The fact that he is less criminal than Trump, however, is absolutely no excuse for the DOJ to refrain from his prosecution. The Biden administration is not the administration of the working people of American. There is absolutely no basis upon which to defend the Biden administration, even if democratically elected. Despite its democratic election, the Biden administration is a regime of criminality.
In regards to Trump, the DOJ could easily file a request within one of Trump’s pending cases for the application of the Federal statute on the deputization of private attorneys to prosecute the more than six counts of contempt of congress the Senate Select Committee on January 6th issued in regards to the January 6th insurrection. Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 42(a)(2), the inherent power of the Court enables a judge to appoint a private attorney to prosecute a defendant for charges of criminal contempt.
In regards to January 6th, as opposed to his mishandling of classified documents, Trump has no recourse to accuse the government of bias, partially or prejudice. No one in the political arena, expect perhaps perspective co-defendants like John Eastman or Mark Meadows, whose slide deck for January 6th is the definition of sedition, compares with Trump.
The basis for the invocation of Fed. R. Crim. P. 42(a)(2) is already well established in Trump’s case in Orange County, California. The judge who is appointed to oversee the case issued a historic order in March, 2023, evoking the imagery of the American revolution.
“Based on the evidence,” Judge David Carter wrote in his order, “the Court finds it more likely than not that President Trump corruptly attempted to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6th, 2021.”
“The illegality of the plan was obvious,” Carter wrote. “Our nation was founded on the peaceful transition of power, epitomized by George Washington laying down his sword to make way for democratic elections.”
“Ignoring this history, President Trump vigorously campaigned for the use Vice President to single-handedly determine the results of the 2020 election. Every American—and certainly the President of the United States—knows that in a democracy, leaders are elected, not installed.”
Notwithstanding, Judge Carter’s ruling on Trump’s act of contempt of Congress, Fed. R. Crim. P. 42(a)(2) is only one of many ways the DOJ could elect to charge Trump for the more than six charges the Select Committee on January 6th recommended against Trump.
The DOJ’s decision to indict Trump federally for his mishandling of classified rather than his contempt of Congress during the January 6th insurrection, for which no small number of participants have been successfully indicted on charges of sedition, indicates, however, a disregard for the peaceful transfer of power from one president to the next.
The mishandling of classified documents, whose effect on the populous is far less significant than the deprivation of a right to the peaceful transfer of power, is aimed at the protection of the vast, sprawling, anti-Constitutional police state. The police state’s secrets are of a far greater value in the eyes of the DOJ than democracy.
Nothing short of Trump’s indictment on Federal charges of contempt of Congress guarantee the preservation of the system of governance he sought to subvert on January 6th, 2021. Absent an indictment on Federal charges of contempt of Congress, Trump’s ‘high crimes and misdemeanors,’ the least of which is his mishandling of classified documents, justice is not served.