Classified Information and State Secrets

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      The Trump Documents Case Puts the Justice System on Trial

      by

      The former president’s efforts to defend against multiple felony counts by discrediting law enforcement pose a grave challenge to democracy.Former President Donald J. Trump has a lot at stake in the federal criminal case lodged against him. He could, in theory, go to prison for years. But if he winds up in the dock in front of a jury, it is no exaggeration to suggest that American justice will be on trial as well.History’s first federal indictment against a former president poses one of the gravest challenges to democracy the country has ever faced. It represents either a validation of the rule-of-law principle that even the most powerful face accountability for their actions or the moment when a vast swath of the public becomes convinced that the system has been irredeemably corrupted by partisanship.Mr. Trump, his allies and even some of his Republican rivals have embarked on a strategy to encourage the latter view, arguing that law enforcement has been hijacked by President Biden and the Democrats to take out his strongest opponent for re-election next year. Few if any of them bothered to wait to read the indictment before backing Mr. Trump’s all-caps assertion that it was merely part of the “GREATEST WITCH HUNT OF ALL TIME.” It is now an article of faith, a default tactic or both.Jack Smith, the special counsel, and his prosecutors knew that defense was coming and have labored to avoid any hint of political motivation with a by-the-book approach, securing the assent of judges and grand jurors along the way. Moreover, their indictment laid out a damning series of facts based on security camera video, text messages and testimony from within Mr. Trump’s own team; even some who have defended him in the past say it will be harder to brush aside the evidence in a courtroom than in the court of public opinion.In the public arena, though, it may be a one-sided fight. Mr. Trump and his allies can scream as loudly as they can that the system is unfair, but prosecutors are bound by rules limiting how much they can say in response. To the extent that Democrats defend prosecutors, it may only buttress the point Mr. Trump is trying to make to the audience he is trying to reach.“I think the verdict on democracy ultimately comes down to Republican leaders and Republican voters,” said David Jolly, a former Republican congressman from Florida who left the party during the Trump presidency. “Their current weaponization narrative is dangerous and destabilizing, but seems to reflect the party’s early consensus. If they don’t pivot soon to due process and faith in the system, I think we could have very dark days ahead. I do worry.”Mr. Trump has attacked the Justice Department and Jack Smith, the special counsel in the case, calling him a lunatic.Kenny Holston/The New York TimesPolls suggest that Mr. Trump has made headway in persuading at least his own supporters that any and all allegations against him are just political. After the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, brought state charges against him related to hush money paid to an adult film actress, the former president’s support among Republicans rose, rather than fell.While 60 percent of all adults surveyed by CNN afterward approved of the charges, 76 percent agreed that politics played a role in the prosecution. As for the effect on America’s system, 31 percent said the indictment strengthened democracy, while 31 percent said it weakened it.All of which indicates that the system’s credibility is on the line in a way it has not been before. Many have criticized American justice over the years for systemic racism, excessive punishment, mistreatment of women subjected to assault or other issues, but they did not command the bullhorn of the presidency. When past presidents like Richard M. Nixon or Bill Clinton got in trouble, they defended themselves aggressively, but did not call the whole system into question.“In 1972 to 1974, the Republicans participated as good-faith members of the process,” said Garrett Graff, the author of “Watergate: A New History,” published last year. “They saw their roles as legislators first and Republicans second. They definitely were skeptical” initially of the allegations against Nixon, “but they followed the facts where they led.”Even Nixon’s sharp-tongued vice president, Spiro T. Agnew, was careful about disparaging the justice system broadly. “Agnew, of course, was Nixon’s attack dog, but mainly against the press, not the F.B.I. or the special prosecutor,” Mr. Graff said.Mr. Trump, on the other hand, is holding nothing back as he assails “the ‘Thugs’ from the Department of Injustice” and calls Mr. Smith a “deranged lunatic.” Republicans like Representative Andy Biggs of Arizona have called for dismantling the F.B.I. “We have now reached a war phase,” he wrote on Twitter on Friday. “Eye for an eye.” Elon Musk said the authorities were showing “far higher interest in pursuing Trump compared to other people in politics.”Several of Mr. Trump’s competitors for the Republican presidential nomination joined in. Former Vice President Mike Pence compared the indictment to leaders of “third-world nations” who “use a criminal justice system in their country against their predecessors.” Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida said “the weaponization of federal law enforcement represents a mortal threat to a free society.”The former president’s defenders generally do not address the substance of the 37 counts against him, but instead make a case of selective prosecution that resonates powerfully among many Republicans: What about Mr. Biden? What about Hunter Biden? What about Hillary Clinton?They point to the origin of the Russia investigation against Mr. Trump, citing the recent report by the special counsel John H. Durham that harshly criticized the F.B.I. for its handling of the case even though it did not come up with any new blockbuster revelations of politically motivated misconduct nor result in the conviction of any major figure.They point to Republican congressional inquiries that they say hint at wrongdoing by the Bidens even without confirmation. They point to the continuing federal criminal investigation of the president’s son Hunter, suggesting it has been impeded. And they point to the fact that the president himself is also under investigation over retaining classified documents yet not charged.The differences between the cases, however, are stark, making apples-to-apples comparisons complicated. In the documents investigation, for instance, Mr. Biden’s advisers by all accounts so far returned the papers to the authorities promptly after discovering them. Mr. Pence did the same after a voluntary search found that the former vice president had kept classified documents, and he was recently cleared by the Justice Department because there was no evidence of willful violations of the law.Mr. Trump, by contrast, refused to hand over all the documents he had taken from the White House — even after being subpoenaed for them. According to the indictment, he orchestrated an expansive scheme to hide papers and feed lies to authorities seeking them. On two occasions, the indictment charged, Mr. Trump showed secret documents to people without security clearance and indicated that he knew he was not supposed to.As for seeking to weaponize the Justice Department, there was ample evidence that Mr. Trump sought to do just that while in office. He openly and aggressively pushed his attorneys general to prosecute his perceived enemies and drop cases against his friends and allies, making no pretense that he was seeking equal and independent justice. His friends-and-family approach to his pardon power extended clemency to associates and those who had access to him through them.He chipped away at so many norms during his four years in office that it is no wonder that institutions have faced credibility problems. Indeed, he has made clear that he does not respect the boundaries that constrained other presidents. Since leaving office, he has called for “termination” of the Constitution so that he could be returned to power without waiting for another election and vowed that he would devote a second term to “retribution” against his foes while pardoning supporters who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, to stop the transfer of power.There is no known evidence, on the other hand, that Mr. Biden has played any role in the investigations against Mr. Trump. Unlike the voluble Mr. Trump, he has made a point of not even publicly commenting on individual prosecutions, saying he respects the autonomy of the Justice Department.Attorney General Merrick B. Garland has been sensitive to the matter of perception and sought to insulate the inquiries by appointing Mr. Smith, a career prosecutor who is not registered with either political party, as a special counsel with a guarantee of independence absent manifest wrongdoing on his part.But that was never going to convince Mr. Trump or his most fervent supporters of the fairness of the process. At bottom, the former president and front-runner for his party’s nomination to be the next president is being charged by a prosecutor appointed by an appointee of the man he hopes to beat. It is a recipe for distrust, especially when stoked by a defendant who has mastered the politics of grievance and victimhood.Will that result in lasting damage to democracy? Even some who support charging Mr. Trump fear that it may. Still, some who have studied politically fraught investigations counseled patience. There will be fireworks. Many will doubt the credibility of the system. But in the end, they said, the system will survive just as it has for more than two centuries.“It’s messy and uncomfortable for the generation living through it, but the system is durable enough to win out,” said Ken Gormley, the president of Duquesne University and the author of books on Watergate and the Clinton investigations. “As painful as the next year is likely to be as the criminal justice system grinds forward toward a fair verdict in the Mar-a-Lago documents case — whatever that outcome may be — we are fortunate that our predecessors have spent 234 years shoring up the bulwark.” More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Qué significa la acusación contra Donald Trump por los documentos

      by

      En su momento, el expresidente criticó a Hillary Clinton por su manejo de información sensible. Ahora, el mismo problema amenaza sus posibilidades de retomar la presidencia.Hubo un tiempo, no hace mucho en realidad, en el que Donald Trump afirmó que se preocupaba por la inviolabilidad de la información clasificada. Eso, por supuesto, sucedió cuando su adversaria fue acusada de ponerla en peligro y eso representó un arma política útil para Trump.A lo largo de 2016, fustigó a Hillary Clinton por utilizar un servidor de correo electrónico privado en vez de uno gubernamental seguro. “Voy a hacer cumplir todas las leyes relativas a la protección de información clasificada”, declaró. “Nadie estará por encima de la ley”. El manejo negligente que Clinton hizo de la información sensible, sentenció, “la descalifica para la presidencia”.Siete años después, Trump se enfrenta a cargos penales por poner en peligro la seguridad nacional por haberse llevado documentos clasificados cuando dejó la Casa Blanca y negarse a devolverlos todos, incluso después de que se le exigió hacerlo. A pesar del adagio de “recoge lo que siembras” de la política estadounidense, es bastante sorprendente que el asunto que ayudó a impulsar a Trump a la Casa Blanca sea lo que amenace con arruinar sus posibilidades de regresar a ella.La acusación presentada por un gran jurado federal a petición del fiscal especial Jack Smith cierra el círculo de la historia de Trump. “Enciérrenla”, coreaban las multitudes en los mítines de campaña de Trump, quien alentaba a sus seguidores para que gritaran eso. Ahora, él podría ser el encerrado de ser sentenciado por alguno de los siete cargos, entre ellos conspiración para la obstrucción de justicia y retención intencional de documentos.Esta acusación es la segunda presentada contra el expresidente en los últimos meses, pero en muchos aspectos eclipsa a la primera tanto en gravedad jurídica como en peligro político. La primera acusación, anunciada en marzo por el fiscal del distrito de Manhattan, acusó a Trump de falsificar registros empresariales para encubrir el pago de dinero a una actriz de cine para adultos —la cual había alegado que habían mantenido una relación sexual— a cambio de su silencio. La segunda la presentó un fiscal federal en representación de toda la nación, la primera en la historia de Estados Unidos contra un expresidente, y se refiere a los secretos de la nación.Mientras que los partidarios de Trump han tratado de desestimar la primera como el trabajo de un demócrata electo local sobre cuestiones que, aunque indecorosas, en última instancia parecen relativamente mezquinas y ocurrieron antes de que asumiera la presidencia, las más recientes acusaciones se derivan directamente de su responsabilidad como comandante en jefe de la nación para salvaguardar los datos que podrían ser útiles a los enemigos de Estados Unidos.Es posible que a los votantes republicanos no les importe que su líder le dé dinero a una estrella porno para que guarde silencio, pero ¿también serán indiferentes ante el delito de impedir que las autoridades intenten recuperar material clasificado?Tal vez. Sin duda, Trump así lo espera. La acusación de Manhattan solo pareció aumentar sus índices de popularidad más que perjudicarlo. Es por eso que, de inmediato, afirmó que la acusación más reciente forma parte de la conspiración más extravagante de la historia de Estados Unidos. Pareciera que, según él, la componenda implica a una amplia gama de fiscales locales y federales, grandes jurados, jueces, demandantes, reguladores y testigos que han mentido durante años para tenderle una trampa, mientras que él es el único que dice la verdad, sin importar cuáles sean los cargos.“Nunca creí posible que algo así pudiera ocurrirle a un expresidente de Estados Unidos, que recibió muchos más votos que cualquier presidente en funciones en la historia de nuestro país y que actualmente lidera, por mucho, a todos los candidatos, tanto demócratas como republicanos, en las encuestas de las elecciones presidenciales de 2024”, escribió en sus redes sociales, haciendo múltiples afirmaciones engañosas en una sola frase. “¡SOY UN HOMBRE INOCENTE!”.Hasta ahora, sus seguidores de base han seguido apoyándolo e incluso algunos de los que se postulan en su contra para obtener la candidatura republicana del próximo año han criticado las investigaciones en su contra. Pero recientemente fue declarado responsable de abuso sexual en un juicio civil, su empresa ha sido declarada culpable de 17 cargos de fraude fiscal y otros delitos y todavía enfrenta otras dos posibles acusaciones formales derivadas de su esfuerzo por revertir su derrota electoral de 2020, lo que desencadenó el ataque al Capitolio el 6 de enero de 2021.La pregunta, al menos políticamente, es si la acumulación de todas esas acusaciones terminará influyendo algún día en los votantes republicanos que lo respaldan, en especial si se concreta una tercera y tal vez cuarta acusación formal. Al menos algunos de sus rivales por la candidatura del partido esperan que el factor fatiga termine mermando su apoyo.En cuanto a Clinton, si sintió cierta alegría por la desgracia ajena la noche del jueves no lo expresó. Sin embargo, tanto ella como sus aliados siempre han creído que el hecho de que James Comey, el entonces director del FBI, reabriera la investigación de su correo electrónico unos días antes de la elección de 2016 le costó la victoria que tantas encuestas habían pronosticado.Trump intentará poner esto en contra de sus perseguidores, con el argumento de que el hecho de que haya sido acusado mientras que Clinton no lo fue, es prueba de que está siendo perseguido injustamente.No importa que los hechos de los casos sean distintos, que Trump pareciera haber hecho todo lo posible para frustrar intencionadamente a las autoridades que trataban de recuperar los documentos secretos durante meses mientras que los investigadores concluyeron que Clinton no tuvo intención de violar la ley. Será un argumento político útil para Trump insistir en que es víctima de una doble moral.Por qué, tras lo sucedido en la campaña de 2016, no reconoció el potencial peligro político de manejar mal información clasificada y tuvo más cuidado al respecto es otra cuestión. Pero pasó gran parte de su presidencia haciendo caso omiso de las preocupaciones sobre la seguridad de la información y las normas sobre la conservación de documentos gubernamentales.Divulgó información ultraconfidencial a funcionarios rusos que lo visitaron en el Despacho Oval. Publicó en internet imágenes sensibles de Irán obtenidas por satélite. Siguió utilizando un teléfono móvil inseguro incluso después de que le dijeron que el dispositivo era monitoreado por agencias de inteligencia rusas y chinas. Rompió documentos oficiales y los tiró al suelo una vez que terminó con ellos, a pesar de que las leyes exigen que se guarden y cataloguen, mientras sus ayudantes iban tras él, recogiendo los fragmentos y pegándolos de nuevo con cinta adhesiva.Incluso cuando se enfrentó a las consecuencias de sus actos, nunca se mostró preocupado. Al fin y al cabo, era el presidente y podía hacer lo que quisiera. Incluso durante la investigación sobre los documentos clasificados que se llevó a Mar-a-Lago, se ha defendido afirmando que tenía el poder de desclasificar cualquier cosa que quisiera con solo pensarlo.Pero ya no es presidente. Ahora no solo se enfrentará a los votantes de las elecciones primarias que decidirán si ha sido inhabilitado para la presidencia, sino a un fiscal que asegura que hará cumplir las leyes relativas a la protección de información clasificada.Será fichado como un criminal acusado y, a menos que ocurra algo imprevisto, en última instancia será juzgado por un jurado de sus iguales.Qué diferencia con su situación de hace siete años.Peter Baker es el corresponsal principal de la Casa Blanca y ha cubierto las gestiones de los últimos cinco presidentes para el Times y The Washington Post. También es autor de siete libros, el más reciente de ellos se titula The Divider: Trump in the White House, 2017-2021, el cual escribió junto a Susan Glasser. More

    • 100 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Chris Christie Says He Found Trump Indictment ‘Devastating’

      by

      Chris Christie, the former Republican governor of New Jersey who is now running for president, called the facts in the indictment against his former ally Donald J. Trump “devastating,” and said that the small group of Republicans now critical of the former president’s conduct would grow.Mr. Christie, appearing on CNN Friday evening, refuted point-by-point the claim by Mr. Trump and many of his fellow Republicans that the indictment represented selective, partisan prosecution that would unnecessarily divide the country.The indictment would divide the nation, he said, but Mr. Trump had brought that on himself with poor conduct that “was completely self-inflicted.”Mr. Christie said he still believes Hillary Clinton should have faced charges in response to her mishandling of classified documents on a private email server, and still does not believe the Trump campaign colluded with Russia in the 2016 election.But, he added, “Each case needs to be assessed on its own merits, and the facts that are laid out here are damning.”The prosecution of Mr. Trump is about “holding to account people who are in positions of responsibility,” he said.Mr. Christie, who opened the broadcast by noting his own record as a federal prosecutor, has made his willingness to draw critical attention to Mr. Trump central to his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination in 2024. But only he and one other candidate, Asa Hutchinson, the former governor of Arkansas, spoke favorably on Friday of the government’s case against the former president.The other candidates, balancing their need to curry favor with Mr. Trump’s supporters against the imperative to dislodge him as the front-runner, have largely taken the side of the Republican base, which sides with the former president.Rather than saying the Justice Department is holding Mr. Trump to an unfair standard, Mr. Christie said a man of Mr. Trump’s stature and ambitions should be held to a higher standard.“The conduct is bad,” he said of actions described in the indictment. “And it is bad for anybody in this country to do it, but it’s particularly awful for someone who has been president and who aspires to be president again.” More

    • 75 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      DeSantis Backhandedly Defends Trump After Indictment

      by

      Visitors from a foreign planet might think Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida had been delivered a tremendous gift this week when his main presidential rival was charged with mishandling the country’s national security secrets.But as Mr. DeSantis’s latest speech showed, this is a turn of events he will need to beware.In an address to Republicans in North Carolina on Friday night, his first public remarks since the unsealing of federal charges against former President Donald J. Trump, Mr. DeSantis trod carefully and danced quickly past the subject.Previewing how he might criticize the Justice Department’s case without letting Mr. Trump entirely off the hook, he offered a somewhat backhanded defense of the now twice-indicted former president — whose loyal followers Mr. DeSantis is seeking to avoid angering — by drawing on his own experiences as a Navy lawyer.Seeming to muse aloud, Mr. DeSantis asked what the Navy would have done to him had he taken classified documents while in military service. “I would have been court-martialed in a New York minute,” he said, in a riff on Mr. Trump’s hometown.While Mr. DeSantis made his remark in reference to the fact that Hillary Clinton did not face charges over her use of a private email server while she was secretary of state, his comments could just as easily have applied to Mr. Trump. And they suggested that he believed both Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton should have faced charges — or neither.“Is there a different standard for a Democrat secretary of state versus a former Republican president?” he asked. “I think there needs to be one standard of justice in this country. Let’s enforce it on everybody and make sure we all know the rules.”(A yearslong inquiry by the State Department found that Mrs. Clinton had not deliberately or systemically mishandled classified information.)The nature of Mr. Trump’s federal indictment, which emerged in full view on Friday, left Mr. DeSantis and several other Republican presidential contenders ever more wobbly on the tightrope they are walking, trying to defend a rival accused of cavalierly and illegally keeping sensitive documents about U.S. nuclear programs and the country’s vulnerabilities to military attack.Many of these candidates now find themselves in the difficult position of rallying around Mr. Trump even as they seek to differentiate themselves from his legacy while he continues to dominate them in the polls.“This is not how justice should be pursued in our country,” Nikki Haley, the former governor of South Carolina and Mr. Trump’s United Nations ambassador, said on Twitter. “The American people are exhausted by the prosecutorial overreach, double standards and vendetta politics.”Such caution struck a sharp contrast with the two Republican candidates most willing to criticize Mr. Trump.Former Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey called the indictment “devastating,” telling CNN that “the facts that are laid out here are damning.” And in an interview with The New York Times, former Gov. Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas pushed back against claims that Mr. Trump was being treated unfairly and reiterated his belief that he should drop out of the race.“To pejoratively say this is the result of a political prosecution is not in service to our justice system,” Mr. Hutchinson said, adding, “It would be doing a disservice to the country if we did not treat this case seriously.”Jack Smith, the special counsel leading the investigation, urged the public on Friday to understand the “scope and gravity” of the charges.Mr. Trump is expected to appear in Federal District Court in Miami on Tuesday afternoon to face charges including willfully retaining national defense secrets in violation of the Espionage Act, making false statements and conspiracy to obstruct justice. On his Truth Social website, the former president called Mr. Smith “deranged.”Some voters who attended Mr. DeSantis’s speech in Greensboro, N.C., suggested they were growing weary of the controversy surrounding Mr. Trump, even as they expressed a belief that the charges were politically motivated. (Mr. Trump also faces charges in state court in New York for his alleged role in paying hush money to a porn star.)“Even if he gets elected again, they’re never going to leave him alone. So what’s the point?” said Mary Noble, 70, who voted twice for Mr. Trump but has not made up her mind in the 2024 primary. “He’ll never be effective. That’s my fear.”Tom Wassel, who sells air pollution control equipment and also supported Mr. Trump in both previous elections, did not mind that Mr. DeSantis had touched on the indictment only briefly, and not very forcefully.“I want him to talk about what he’s going to run on,” Mr. Wassel, 70, said.Beyond Mr. Christie and Mr. Hutchinson, Republicans running for president were largely supportive of Mr. Trump, with some arguing that the prosecution amounted to an extraordinary and unfair political vendetta and one going so far as to bluntly promise to pardon him.Vivek Ramaswamy, an entrepreneur who has positioned himself to secure the backing of Mr. Trump’s supporters if the former president’s legal problems derail his political comeback, said, “I commit to pardon Trump promptly on Jan. 20, 2025.”In a radio interview on Friday before the indictment was unsealed, former Vice President Mike Pence seemed to contrast Mr. Trump’s conduct with his own diligent return of classified documents to the National Archives. But he added that he was “deeply troubled to see this indictment move forward” and took a swipe at what he called “years of politicization” of the Justice Department.Meanwhile, Senator Mitt Romney of Utah, the Republican nominee for president in 2012 and a leading critic of Mr. Trump, was one of the few G.O.P. officeholders to condemn him, saying the former president had “brought these charges upon himself by not only taking classified documents, but by refusing to simply return them when given numerous opportunities to do so.”Jonathan Weisman More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Will Trump’s Indictment Bar Him From Running for President in 2024?

      by

      The second indictment of former President Donald J. Trump — this time over his hoarding of sensitive government documents — adds to the unusual questions raised by the spectacle of someone running for president while facing charges.The indictment — and any conviction — would not bar Mr. Trump from running.Nevertheless, it would be extraordinary for a person who is under indictment, let alone convicted of a felony, to be a major party nominee.There are only a few historical examples of somewhat serious candidates who even come close. They include the unsuccessful run in the 2016 Republican primary by Rick Perry, the former governor of Texas, after he was indicted on charges of abuse of power (the charges were dismissed months after he dropped out of the race), and the 1920 run by Eugene V. Debs as the Socialist Party nominee while he sat in prison for an Espionage Act conviction.If Mr. Trump were to be elected president while a felony case against him was pending or after any conviction, many complications would ensue.The Justice Department has in the past taken the position that even indicting a president while in office would be unconstitutional because it would interfere with the president’s ability to perform duties as head of the executive branch. Mr. Trump would surely try to get the case dismissed on that basis. There is no definitive Supreme Court ruling because the issue has never arisen before.Notably, in 1997, the Supreme Court allowed a federal lawsuit against President Bill Clinton to proceed while he was in office. That was a civil case, however — not a criminal one. Mr. Trump also faces a state case, an indictment in Manhattan in April, where he is accused of falsifying business records related to a hush-money payment.Even more extraordinary complications would arise were Mr. Trump to be convicted and incarcerated and yet elected anyway. One possibility is that he could win a federal court order requiring his release from prison as a result of a constitutional challenge. Another is that upon the commencement of his second term, he could be immediately removed from office under the 25th Amendment as “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.” More

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Biden Sticks to ‘Say Nothing’ Strategy on the Trump Indictment

      by

      President Biden and his advisers have concluded that commenting on the indictment would only feed into Republican accusations of a politically motivated prosecution.President Biden and his top aides in the West Wing, along with members of his administration and re-election campaign at all levels, are executing a carefully crafted strategy in response to the federal indictment of former President Donald J. Trump: Say nothing.Mr. Biden has always insisted that he would never interfere with the independence of the Justice Department. But he and his aides also believe that commenting on the case will only feed into the accusations, from Mr. Trump and members of the Republican Party, of a politically motivated prosecution.It is a stance that will test a voluble president with a penchant for saying what is on his mind, even when it is not politically advantageous. With his predecessor and 2024 rival charged with conspiracy, obstruction of justice and mishandling classified documents, Mr. Biden and his aides are eager to keep themselves far away from the Trump political and legal spectacle as it migrates south to Miami.For Mr. Biden, keeping his distance also keeps the focus squarely on Mr. Trump. Mr. Biden ran for office in 2020 with a pledge of restoring a sense of pre-Trump normalcy to the White House; the White House is betting that avoiding substantive public comments on the investigations into Mr. Trump will remind voters of that contrast.“President Biden and his campaign won’t be distracted by Trump’s chaos,” said Cristóbal Alex, a veteran of Mr. Biden’s 2020 campaign and White House. “The focus is on the American people and what the Biden administration accomplished in the first term.”Even a stray comment by the president during one of his scrums with reporters, could be seized on by Mr. Trump and his allies as evidence that Mr. Biden is exerting undue influence in the case against his predecessor.“This is a president who respects the rule of law, and he has said that since Day 1,” Olivia Dalton, the deputy White House press secretary, told reporters on Friday. “That’s precisely why we’re not commenting here.”Ms. Dalton went on to say “no comment” a half-dozen more times in the next 10 minutes. Mr. Biden explained his own silence to reporters on Thursday, just hours before the charges against Mr. Trump were unveiled.“Because you notice I have never once — not one single time — suggested to the Justice Department what they should do or not do, relative to bringing a charge or not bringing a charge,” Mr. Biden said. “I’m honest.”Asked again to weigh in on Friday, as he traveled to a community college in North Carolina, Mr. Biden was blunt: “I have no comment.”Mr. Biden’s determined self-censorship comes with a cost. It prevents the president from defending the government’s legal system against Mr. Trump’s relentless, yearslong attacks, which are now amplified and echoed by his Republican allies and some of his competitors for the party’s presidential nomination. In a social media post on Friday, Mr. Trump lashed out at “the ‘Thugs’ from the Department of Injustice.” It will fall to others to rebut those attacks. White House and Biden campaign aides on Friday declined to respond to the former president’s claims of being treated unfairly.Mr. Biden is himself is the subject of a special counsel’s investigation into handling of classified documents found at his home and an office he used before becoming president.The president’s attorneys have long stressed that the case differs from the one involving Mr. Trump. Mr. Biden and his aides have said they cooperated with Justice Department officials from the beginning of the inquiry. The indictment of Mr. Trump, which was unsealed on Friday, says that the former president conspired to conceal the documents and prevent their return to the National Archives.A person familiar with the investigation into Mr. Biden’s handling of documents said there is no indication that Robert Hur, the special counsel in that case, is nearing any decision.Mr. Biden’s allies urged a sense of calm among Democrats and said the president’s campaign should continue to focus on promoting his accomplishments in office and warn voters about Republican efforts to restrict abortion rights — which has polled as the party’s best issue since the Supreme Court, with three Trump appointees, ended the constitutional right to an abortion last year.“We just need to stay focused on our message and not get caught up in the Trump circus,” said Representative Jennifer McClellan of Virginia, a Democrat who is a member of the Biden campaign’s national advisory board.On Friday, Mr. Biden put his strategy of avoidance into practice.At the same hour the special counsel unsealed the indictment against Mr. Trump, drawing the eyes of the nation to the multiple charges against him, Mr. Biden was in North Carolina, touring a work force training program at a community college.Later — not long after the special counsel in Mr. Trump’s case spoke to the nation about the indictment — Mr. Biden spoke at Fort Liberty about the need to help the spouses of military service members to find employment.The contrast could not have been clearer. And, at least for the moment, Mr. Biden remained good to his word. Asked on Friday afternoon whether he had talked to Attorney General Merrick B. Garland about the Trump case, Mr. Biden said he had not.“I have not spoken to him at all and I’m not going to speak with him,” the president said, adding for good measure: “And I have no comment on that.” More

    • 75 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      The Trump Indictment: A Changed Landscape

      by

      More from our inbox:Our Failure to Support New Parents and BabiesThe indictment followed criminal charges against former President Donald J. Trump in a hush-money case brought by local prosecutors in New York.Doug Mills/The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Trump Is Indicted Over Classified Files” (front page, June 9):The indictment of Donald Trump heralds a new chapter in American history. His trial could come sometime next year during the Republican primary season. He will continue to tell his followers that he has done nothing wrong and that this is all part of a vendetta by the Washington elite.His followers will continue to support him. If he is found guilty in any of his trials, he will appeal. If he is nominated, the appeals process will play out during the election campaign. He could be elected and then have a guilty verdict upheld as he is about to be sworn into office.Mr. Trump and the special counsel Jack Smith serve as the protagonists in the first act of a Shakespearean tragedy. The full effects on America of Mr. Smith’s essential action will not be known until the final act.Sidney WeissmanHighland Park, Ill.To the Editor:Is no one above the law? We are about to find out. The stakes couldn’t be higher if the country hopes to remain a legitimate democracy.Tom McGrawGrand Rapids, Mich.To the Editor:The indictment of Donald Trump on federal criminal charges might improve his odds of receiving the Republican nomination, but it almost certainly means that if nominated, he would lose the general election.It may increase the sympathy and anger of millions of his hard-core supporters. They will give him even more money to run and turn out in even greater numbers in the primaries, but it will not persuade many, if any, supporters of President Biden to vote against him in November 2024.This is not yet a banana republic. The greater number of Americans who voted for Mr. Biden in 2020 will continue to believe that this and future indictments are legitimate.Even if Mr. Trump manages to beat all the charges against him, he has been further disgraced by all these legal battles. And the effect of the indictments after the lessons of the Jan. 6 hearings will bring new voters, particularly first-time voters, to Mr. Biden.If he remains healthy, President Biden wins again.Allen SmithSalisbury, Md.To the Editor:Journalists need to get to the meat of the Republicans’ support of Donald Trump’s behavior in the classified documents case and ask them the following questions:Are you saying you do not trust the Florida grand jury, made up of ordinary citizens from a state that twice voted for Mr. Trump? The prosecutor presents the facts, but the grand jurors vote on whether to indict. Do you really think all of them are on an anti-Trump witch hunt?Why are you making judgments about this case when you don’t know the charges or the facts? It sounds as if you are advocating for Mr. Trump to be able to break the law at will with no consequences; do you deny that?Stop allowing Republican politicians to hide behind specious arguments bereft of facts or even common sense. They are spouting anti-democratic nonsense, and the press should be exposing them for what they are.Jean PhillipsFlorence, Ore.To the Editor:In all the discussions, among all the various talking heads, about the various aspects of this new criminal indictment, one significant factor has been overlooked.At no time, during any judicial proceedings, will Donald Trump ever take the witness stand. It will never happen.Stuart AltshulerNew YorkTo the Editor:It is vital that Donald Trump’s trial be scheduled to start no later than four months after his arraignment, so that the trial can be finished well before the Iowa caucuses. This can be done by actions of the judge assigned to the case immediately after the arraignment, setting strict time limits for all pretrial matters.Both parties have experienced attorneys who can promptly complete pretrial matters, including discovery and pretrial motions, within that four-month period so that the trial can end well before the voters have to make their decisions.Robert LernerMilwaukeeThe writer is a retired lawyer who tried many cases in federal courts as a prosecutor or as a defense attorney.To the Editor:Jack Smith, all I can say is thank you. Thank you for believing in our country. Thank you for trying to uphold our democracy. Thank you for your courage.I have tears in my eyes. You have restored my hope. Grateful. Stay well.Dody Osborne CoxGuilford, Conn.Our Failure to Support New Parents and Babies Shuran Huang for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Risk to Mothers Lasts a Full Year After Childbirth” (front page, May 28) and “A 3-Month-Old Baby Was Found Dead Near a Bronx Expressway” (nytimes.com, May 29):As a midwife working with pregnant people and new parents, I found these articles — about increasing rates of maternal mortality from hypertension, mental illness and other causes and about parents charged with murder or reckless endangerment — heartbreaking.This represents the total failure of our society to support pregnant people and new parents. After receiving only rudimentary maternity services with limited access to care, new parents are turned out of the medical system without proper follow-up and support. Our health care system has not responded to the increasing challenges of parenting in the modern world, leaving parents and children to face preventable dangers.Patient-centered care in pregnancy and improved postpartum services could prevent the suffering and deaths through early identification of risks and swift intervention. Access to care is far too limited.There has been enough hand-wringing about our horrible statistics. We need immediate investment in maternity services, expanded access to obstetric and midwifery care, mental health services, postpartum care and support for new parents.How many more deaths will it take for us to invest in the well-being and safety of our parents and children?Laura WeilSan FranciscoThe writer is an assistant clinical professor at the University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine.To the Editor:Our nation’s failure to properly care for expectant and new mothers and their babies speaks to a larger problem: Our health care system is siloed and focused on delivering urgent services. We treat pregnancy as an event, focused on a safe delivery and a healthy baby and mother, and our systems respond to problems only when they arise.There is a pressing need to address increasing maternal and infant morbidity and mortality — and the many other health issues across the country that are rapidly getting worse — by considering the entirety of factors that make up a person’s health and well-being. We need to spend more time upstream, creating the vital conditions that are key to good health and well-being, like a healthy environment, humane housing, meaningful work and sufficient wealth.If we increase our investments in order to create the conditions people need to thrive, we can build the long-lasting change that is needed to prevent many serious health problems. This is much harder than treating a single person presenting in the emergency room, but it is a much smarter investment for our long-term health and well-being.Alan LieberMorristown, N.J.The writer is chief operating officer and chief health care strategist for the Rippel Foundation, which is working to rethink systems that have an impact on health and well-being. More

    • 175 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Trump’s Indictment: Given What We Know, Not Charging Him Would Be the Greater Scandal

      by

      Donald Trump has been indicted. Again. And this time, it appears richly deserved, even if one includes special considerations related to the unique recent history of public officials mishandling classified documents.Before we dive into the details of the case, it’s important to restate the general principles that should govern any prosecution decision. The first principle, as I’ve argued, is that no person is above the law. That’s, of course, easy to say in the abstract, but perhaps a better way to frame it is that Trump’s status as a former president means that he should be treated no better and — crucially — no worse than ordinary American citizens.“No better” means that Trump should face charges if, for example, I would face charges under similar facts. It really is that straightforward.“No worse” means don’t stretch the law to indict the man. That may have been the case in March, when the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg, indicted Trump on charges related to hush-money payments made to the pornographic actress Stormy Daniels. As I explained at some length, there are real questions as to the legal sufficiency of Bragg’s complaint, including whether federal law pre-empts his state charges. It does not appear to be an easy case to make.But in the case of the new indictment by the special counsel, Jack Smith, “no worse” comes with an additional twist. Trump’s case is not the first high-profile instance of a senior public official mishandling classified information. Hillary Clinton comes to mind, and while the Department of Justice might be able to prosecute Trump under facts similar to those in Clinton’s case, it should not. I can think of few things that would damage the legitimacy of the American criminal justice system more than for the department to impose a double standard on Republican and Democratic presidential contenders.So in addition to evaluating the relevant law, the Justice Department should apply the same standard to Trump as it did to Clinton, the standard articulated by the F.B.I. director at the time, James Comey, in his public statement announcing that the bureau would not recommend prosecution.As Comey said of Clinton’s storing classified information on a private server, “There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.”But Comey declined to recommend prosecution because he said he couldn’t find evidence that the Justice Department had prosecuted any case under similar facts: “All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct or indications of disloyalty to the United States or efforts to obstruct justice.”That’s the Comey test: no prosecution absent evidence of one or more of the factors above. I disagreed with the decision at the time and still disagree. I’m a former Judge Advocate General’s Corps officer, an Army lawyer who helped investigate classified information breaches when I served in Iraq, and I feel confident that I would have faced military charges under similar facts.But once the Comey test was articulated, it should be evenly applied. And thus the critical question for the political legitimacy — and not just legal sufficiency — of the indictment is whether there is evidence of intentionality or obstruction in the Trump case that was absent in Clinton’s. (This is the same question that should be asked of the mishandling of classified documents by Joe Biden and Mike Pence.)As of Thursday night, we had not yet seen the indictment, so there is a chance my assessment will change. But a review of the publicly available evidence indicates that Trump’s conduct likely does meet the Comey test. There is evidence of intentionality and obstruction.Justice Department court filings related to the Mar-a-Lago search warrant make a series of damning claims against Trump. According to the department, in 2021 the National Archives and Records Administration corresponded with Trump’s team, hoping to obtain the “transfer of what it perceived were missing records from his administration.” In January 2022, Trump provided the archives with 15 boxes of records. When it reviewed the documents, it found 184 with classification markings and 25 marked “top secret,” including some with extraordinary “H.C.S.” and “S.I.” markings. “H.C.S.” indicates classified information “derived from clandestine human sources; “S.I.” indicates information “derived from the monitoring of foreign communications signals by other than the intended recipients.” In other words, these documents were quite sensitive.The inclusion of this information among the files in question caused the National Archives to contact the Justice Department, which promptly began efforts to determine if Trump retained any additional classified information. As the department told a federal court, the “F.B.I. developed evidence” that “dozens of additional boxes” remained at Trump’s residence at Mar-a-Lago and they were “also likely to contain classified information.”The Justice Department then obtained a grand jury subpoena demanding “any and all” records in Trump’s possession that contained classification markings. What happened next is what makes this case quite serious for Trump. On June 3, 2022, the Trump legal team provided a small batch of files to department officials and included a sworn certification letter indicating that Trump’s custodian of records had conducted a “diligent search” to locate any documents responsive to the subpoena and that the custodian had produced all such documents.According to the Justice Department, this certification was not accurate. While the Trump team produced 38 additional documents bearing classification markings (including 17 marked “top secret”) in its subpoena response, the department believed that there were still more classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. Its filing states that “the F.B.I. uncovered multiple sources of evidence” indicating that the response to the grand jury subpoena was “incomplete.” Even worse, “the government also developed evidence that government records were likely concealed and removed” from their storage area and “that efforts were likely taken to obstruct the government’s investigation.”This is the evidence that precipitated the grant of a search warrant, and on Aug. 8 the F.B.I. searched Mar-a-Lago. It claims that search uncovered more than 100 additional classified records, “including information classified at the highest levels.”These claims alone — if proved at trial — already provide evidence of intentionality and obstruction. Close observers of the case will note that I have not included an analysis of numerous news reports indicating that Trump engaged in even more egregious conduct, including ones that he was caught on a recording discussing a highly sensitive document detailing military plans for confronting Iran.Before we see the indictment, we know only the broad brushstrokes of the possible claims. But those brushstrokes paint a picture of intentionality and obstruction, including allegations of efforts to conceal and remove documents and the false certification of a complete response to the grand jury subpoena.Times news reports indicate that Trump is facing charges that include retaining national defense information, obstruction of justice, false statements, contempt of court and conspiracy. Each of those charges is substantiated even by the partial information we currently possess. The available evidence indicates that Trump’s conduct meets both the legal test for prosecution and the more lenient Comey test applied to Clinton.To say that the Trump indictment is credible is not the same thing as saying that he is guilty. We possess only partial information, and he has not yet mounted his legal defense. But for now, the evidence seems sufficient to support an indictment. Indeed, given what we know now, not charging Trump would be the greater scandal. It would place presidents outside the rule of federal law and declare to the American public that its presidents enjoy something akin to a royal privilege. But this is a republic, not a monarchy, and it is right to make Donald Trump answer for the crimes he is accused of.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More