Mar-a-Lago (Palm Beach, Fla)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Here Are the Likely Next Steps in the Trump Documents Case

      by

      The federal prosecution of the former president should play out much like any other criminal proceeding, but against the backdrop of the political calendar.Now that former President Donald J. Trump has entered a plea of not guilty at his arraignment in Miami, the criminal case against him will, barring an unforeseen event, settle into a traditional trajectory.The case against Mr. Trump, accusing him of illegally retaining national defense documents and obstructing the government’s efforts to retrieve them, is the first time that federal charges have been filed against a former president. But the case’s passage through the legal system should, with any luck, proceed like other criminal matters, if against the backdrop of the political calendar.The only date set so far for a further step is a hearing on June 27 at which Mr. Trump’s co-defendant and personal aide, Walt Nauta, will enter his plea. A spokesman for Mr. Trump, Steven Cheung, said he was unsure whether Mr. Nauta and Mr. Trump have a joint defense agreement.The parties will begin a slow but steady rhythm of status conferences, meeting every couple of months in court as the government starts to provide evidence to the defense through what is known as the discovery process. That evidence will help Mr. Trump’s lawyers decide what motions they plan to file in attacking the charges against him.Mr. Trump will also have to finalize the members of his legal team. To that end, he met privately with a handful of Florida-based lawyers at his club in Miami, Doral, on Monday night, according to a person close to him who was not authorized to speak publicly about the efforts to remake his legal team. Mr. Trump found himself needing additional lawyers after the two who had taken lead on the documents case, James Trusty and John Rowley, resigned the day after the charges were filed.The meetings were said to have gone well, but it remained unclear whether any of the lawyers he interviewed would be hired. Mr. Trump’s advisers are hoping to avoid rushing into a situation of quickly hiring someone who may not gel with the client and with his other lawyers. Nearly a half-dozen lawyers were interviewed, according to one person familiar with the discussions.For now, Mr. Trump will lean heavily on the New York lawyer who appeared with him at the arraignment, Todd Blanche. Mr. Blanche is also defending Mr. Trump against criminal charges in state court in Manhattan stemming from a hush-money payment to a porn star.It is unclear what role another lawyer who stood beside him, Christopher M. Kise, will have as the case goes forward. Mr. Kise was initially hired to handle a legal fight over imposing an outside arbiter to review reams of government records seized last summer during an F.B.I. search of Mar-a-Lago, Mr. Trump’s private club and residence in Florida.In a brief interview after the court appearance, Mr. Kise, a former Florida solicitor general, rejected reports that Mr. Trump had struggled to find lawyers interested in working on the case.“Contrary to the recent reporting, President Trump has a number of very good options that he’s considering and will take his time to make an informed decision,” Mr. Kise said. “There are a number of excellent lawyers that are not only willing, but very interested in working with him on this case.”Mr. Kise said his own job was “to provide advice and counsel to my client.”The one unusual aspect of Mr. Trump’s case will be its pacing.Prosecutors working for the special counsel Jack Smith will most likely seek to drive the case forward quickly, all too aware that the prosecution is playing out as Mr. Trump pursues his presidential campaign. Mr. Trump’s lawyers will surely try to slow the case down, perhaps with an eye toward dragging it out until after the 2024 election. That has been Mr. Trump’s M.O. in nearly every legal case he has faced over the years, and this one is not likely to be an exception.Mr. Trump is expected to continue with a fairly steady stream of political events in the coming months, although the needs of the court calendar in the Florida case will in some ways dictate his actions. Unlike when Mr. Trump chose to opt out of personally appearing at the civil rape and defamation trial brought against him in New York by the writer E. Jean Carroll, he is unlikely to be permitted the same flexibility by the federal judge who hears his criminal case in Florida.At this point, it remains unclear whether Mr. Trump will attend the first Republican primary debate, which is scheduled for Aug. 23 in Milwaukee.But if he does show up, he will almost certainly be pressed about his indictments — not only by the moderators but also by the other candidates. Mr. Trump is also facing the prospect of charges concerning election interference from the district attorney in Fulton County, Ga., and from Mr. Smith concerning similar efforts to thwart the transfer of power after he lost the 2020 election. More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Fact Check: Trump’s Misleading Defenses in Classified Documents Case

      by

      The former president drew misleading comparisons to others, misconstrued the classification process and leveled inaccurate attacks at officials.Hours after pleading not guilty in a federal court in Miami to charges related to his handling of classified documents, former President Donald J. Trump defended his conduct on Tuesday with a string of familiar falsehoods.Appearing at his golf club in Bedminster, N.J., Mr. Trump drew misleading comparisons to other political figures, misconstrued the classification process and leveled inaccurate attacks at officials.Here’s a fact check of claims Mr. Trump made related to the inquiry.What Mr. Trump Said“Threatening me with 400 years in prison for possessing my own presidential papers, which just about every other president has done, is one of the most outrageous and vicious legal theories ever put forward in an American court of law.”False. The Presidential Records Act of 1978 governs the preservation and retention of official records of former presidents, and gives the National Archives and Records Administration complete ownership and control of presidential records. The law makes a distinction between official records and personal documents, and has applied to every president since Ronald Reagan.The agency has said that “it assumed physical and legal custody of the presidential records from the administrations of Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, when those presidents left office.”Separately, after Mr. Trump repeatedly and misleadingly compared his handling of records to that of his immediate predecessor, the National Archives said in a statement that former President Barack Obama turned over his documents, classified and unclassified, as required by law. The agency has also said it is not aware of any missing boxes of presidential records from the Obama administration.What Mr. Trump Said“The decision to segregate personal materials from presidential records is made by the president during the president’s term and in the president’s sole discretion.”False. The Presidential Records Act defines what constitutes personal materials — such as diaries or political campaign documents — from official records. It does not give the president “sole discretion” in determining what is and is not a personal record. Under the law, a departing president is required to separate personal documents from official records before leaving office.F.B.I. agents searched Mr. Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in August, more than a year after the general counsel of the National Archives requested the recovery of the materials and after months of repeated inquiries from officials at the agency and at the Justice Department.What Mr. Trump Said“I was supposed to negotiate with NARA, which is exactly what I was doing until Mar-a-Lago was raided by gun-toting F.B.I. agents.”False. The Presidential Records Act does not establish a process of negotiation between the president and the archives. The court-approved search of Mr. Trump’s Florida residence unfolded after he repeatedly resisted the government’s requests that he return the material, even after being subpoenaed.What Mr. Trump Said“Biden sent 1,850 boxes to the University of Delaware, making the search very, very difficult for anybody. And he refuses to give them up and he refuses to let people even look at them, and then they say how he’s behaving so nicely.”This is misleading. Joseph R. Biden Jr. donated 1,850 boxes of documents to the University of Delaware in 2012 from his tenure as a senator representing the state from 1973 to 2009. Unlike presidential documents, which must be released to the archives once a president leaves office, documents from members of Congress are not covered by the Presidential Records Act. It is not uncommon for senators and representatives to give such items to colleges, research institutions or historical facilities.The University of Delaware agreed not to give the public access to Mr. Biden’s documents from his time as senator until two years after he retired from public life. But the F.B.I. did search the collection in February as part of a separate special counsel investigation into Mr. Biden’s handling of government documents and in cooperation with his legal team. The New York Times reported at the time that the material was still being analyzed but did not appear to contain any classified documents.What Mr. Trump Said“When caught, Hillary then deleted and acid-washed. Nobody does that because of the expense, but it’s pretty conclusive. Thirty-three thousand emails in defiance of a congressional subpoena already launched. The subpoena was there and she decided to delete, acid-wash and then smash and destroy her cellphones with a hammer. And then they say I participated in obstruction.”This is misleading. There are several key differences between Mr. Trump’s case and Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of state — which Mr. Trump also described inaccurately.Crucially, several official investigations have concluded that Mrs. Clinton did not systematically or deliberately mishandle classified material, and a 2018 inspector general report supported the F.B.I.’s decision not to charge Mrs. Clinton.In contrast, Mr. Trump is accused of mishandling classified documents and obstructing the government’s repeated efforts to recover them and making false statements to officials. The indictment unsealed last week featured photographs of documents stored in sometimes haphazard ways, including boxes stacked in a shower and others piled on the stage of a ballroom that guests frequented.According to the F.B.I.’s inquiry into the matter, Mrs. Clinton’s lawyers provided about 30,000 work-related emails to the State Department in 2014 and instructed an employee to remove all personal emails older than 60 days. In 2015, after The Times reported Mrs. Clinton’s use of a personal email account, a Republican-led House committee investigating the 2012 attacks on American outposts in Benghazi, Libya, sent a subpoena requesting all emails she had in that account related to Libya.That same month, an employee working for the company that managed Mrs. Clinton’s server realized he did not actually delete the personal emails as instructed in 2014. He then used a free software program called BleachBit — not actual acid or chemical compounds — to delete about 30,000 personal emails.The F.B.I. found thousands of additional work-related emails that Mrs. Clinton did not turn over to the State Department, but the director of the bureau at the time, James B. Comey, said it found “no evidence that any of the additional work-related emails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them.”Mrs. Clinton would almost certainly disagree with Mr. Trump’s assertion that the F.B.I. and the Justice Department “protected” her, and has said that Mr. Comey’s actions as well as Russian interference cost her the 2016 election.What Mr. Trump Said“He totally exonerated Mike Pence. I’m happy about that. Mike did nothing wrong, but he happened to have classified documents in his house. But they exonerated him. And Biden is a different story.”This is misleading. Classified documents were found at former Vice President Mike Pence’s home in Indiana in January and President Biden’s former office at a Washington think tank in November and his Delaware residence in January. The Justice Department declined to pursue charges against Mr. Pence, and the investigation into Mr. Biden’s handling of materials is continuing.But those cases differ in several significant ways from Mr. Trump’s, particularly in the volume of documents found and in Mr. Pence’s and Mr. Biden’s response.About a dozen documents with classified markings were found at Mr. Pence’s home. The F.B.I. searched his home in February with his agreement and found one additional classified document. It is unclear how many classified documents were found in Mr. Biden’s possession, but his lawyers have said “a small number” were discovered at his former office and about a half-dozen at his Delaware home.In contrast, Mr. Trump stored “hundreds” of classified documents, according to the Justice Department’s indictment, which said some records included information about the country’s nuclear programs as well as “potential vulnerabilities of the United States and its allies to military attack.” In total, the government has retrieved more than 300 files with classified markings from his Florida home and private club.Representatives for Mr. Pence and Mr. Biden have said that they inadvertently kept those documents and quickly alerted the National Archives once they were discovered. Both men also cooperated with government officials in turning over the documents and appeared to have voluntarily complied with searches of their properties.In contrast, Mr. Trump repeatedly defied requests to return materials for months and, according to the indictment, played an active role in concealing classified documents from investigators. The archives alerted Mr. Trump in May 2021 that presidential documents were missing. Officials retrieved 15 boxes from Mar-a-Lago in January 2022 but suspected that other records remained missing. Seven months later, F.B.I. agents searched the Florida property and recovered additional documents.What Mr. Trump Said“Unlike me, who had absolute declassification authority as president, Joe Biden as vice president had no authority to declassify and no right to possess the documents. He had no right.”This is misleading. Vice presidents do have the power to declassify certain material, though the scope of their declassification powers has not been explicitly tested in courts.Mr. Trump has previously insisted that he had the power to declassify material without needing to inform anyone. There are formal procedures for declassifying information, but whether presidents must abide by them is an unsettled legal issue, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service and the American Bar Association. A federal appeals court ruled in 2020 that “declassification, even by the president, must follow established procedures.” But the Supreme Court has yet to weigh in on the matter.It is worth noting, though, that Mr. Trump followed these procedures for certain documents, like issuing a memorandum on the day before leaving office declassifying information related to the F.B.I. investigation into his 2016 campaign’s ties to Russia.Separately, legal experts have noted that the classification of information related to nuclear weapons or “restricted data” is governed by a separate legal framework entirely, the Atomic Energy Act. That law does not explicitly give the president the authority to declassify nuclear secrets unilaterally and establishes a strict process for declassification that involves several agencies. It is unclear whether documents stored at Mar-a-Lago included “restricted data.”Chris Cameron More

    • 150 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Los votantes del sur de Florida reflexionan sobre el caso de Trump

      by

      Los sentimientos encontrados entre algunos residentes sobre el expresidente y el caso en su contra reflejan la complicada política del estado.Como votante registrada en el condado de Palm Beach, Florida, Bette Anne Starkey sabe que existe la posibilidad de que la elijan para formar parte de un jurado en el caso penal federal contra el expresidente Donald Trump. Pero a pesar de que ha votado dos veces por Trump, en realidad no sabe cómo actuaría si fuese miembro del jurado que podría analizar el caso.Haciéndose eco del propio Trump, Starkey, una contadora de 81 años, usó la frase “cacería de brujas” en una entrevista para describir la acusación federal contra el expresidente, la cual lo acusa de sustraer de forma deliberada documentos clasificados de la Casa Blanca. Pero también le cuesta entender por qué Trump no devolvió los documentos cuando se los pidieron, y eso es parte de su indignación latente con el presidente número 45.“Estoy harta de escuchar sobre todas sus artimañas”, dijo.Sus comentarios reflejan los sentimientos complejos que Trump puede suscitar en estos días incluso entre los republicanos que votaron por él. Pero Starkey también es un reflejo de la política complicada y volátil del sur de Florida, el terreno de Trump, y el grupo de jurados que ofrece.El diverso y densamente poblado sur de Florida será el lugar donde se convocará a un jurado para juzgar la inocencia o culpabilidad de Trump si el caso llega a juicio, aunque no se ha determinado ni el lugar exacto del juicio ni el grupo de jurados.Partidarios del expresidente se reunieron el domingo cerca de Mar-a-Lago en Palm Beach, Florida.Saul Martinez para The New York TimesEl caso se presentó en la división judicial de West Palm Beach del Distrito Sur de Florida, lo que significa que el jurado podría ser seleccionado entre los votantes registrados en el condado de Palm Beach, hogar del resort Mar-a-Lago de Trump, donde ha vivido desde que dejó la Casa Blanca. En 2020, Trump perdió en el condado de Palm Beach ante el presidente Biden por casi 13 puntos porcentuales.Pero un grupo de jurados compuesto por votantes del condado de Miami-Dade, al sur de Palm Beach, también es una posibilidad, en particular si se determina que el juzgado federal en Miami, donde se espera que Trump haga una comparecencia inicial el martes, está mejor equipado para organizar el que probablemente será uno de los juicios penales más importantes en la historia de Estados Unidos.Trump perdió en Miami-Dade por solo siete puntos en las últimas elecciones y obtuvo un fuerte apoyo de los votantes hispanos en particular; más de dos tercios de los residentes del condado se identifican como hispanos, según datos del censo.Sin embargo, ambos condados se han vuelto más republicanos en los últimos años, y los candidatos de ese partido han tenido un éxito notable en las contiendas estatales. Trump ganó en Florida tanto en 2016 como en 2020, y el estado eligió dos veces al gobernador Ron DeSantis, quien es el principal rival de Trump para la candidatura presidencial republicana.Todo esto debería ofrecer cierto consuelo a los miembros del equipo de defensa de Trump, quienes saben que solo se necesita un voto para que el resultado sea un jurado dividido. Además, muchos habitantes del sur de Florida, al igual que estadounidenses en otras partes del país, creen que Trump es víctima de un trato injusto por parte de fuerzas poderosas en la izquierda política.George Cadman, un agente de bienes raíces de 54 años y padre de dos hijos, dijo que no ha seguido de cerca las noticias en los últimos meses. Afirmó que no había oído nada sobre los cargos federales contra Trump, lo que lo convierte, en cierto sentido, en un buen candidato para servir como jurado.El caso se presentó en la división de West Palm Beach del Distrito Sur de Florida, lo que significa que el jurado podría ser seleccionado entre los votantes registrados en el condado de Palm Beach, donde está el resort Mar-a-Lago de Trump. Saul Martinez para The New York TimesPero Cadman, que vive en el condado de Miami-Dade, en el sur, también dijo que apoya a Trump “100 por ciento” y que cree que las investigaciones previas sobre el expresidente tuvieron motivaciones políticas. Tras agregar que cree que la interferencia electoral de Rusia en 2016 y el escándalo sobre Trump y Ucrania fueron engaños, dijo que “sería muy cauteloso al tomar una decisión sobre lo que pienso al respecto”, refiriéndose al nuevo caso contra Trump.(En una llamada telefónica posterior, Cadman dijo que por mucho que le gustaba Trump, planeaba votar por el presidente Biden en 2024, porque el aumento del valor de las propiedades había beneficiado su trabajo como agente de bienes raíces).Muchos de los cubanoestadounidenses del sur de Florida aprendieron por las malas, durante y después de la Revolución Cubana, sobre el impacto de la política incluso en las vidas apolíticas. Y para algunos de los conservadores entre ellos, como Modesto Estrada, un empresario jubilado que llegó a Miami hace 18 años, vale la pena apoyar a Trump como un poderoso freno para los demócratas y las políticas liberales que, según Estrada, están “arruinando el país” pues disuaden a la gente de trabajar.Estrada, de 71 años, señaló que también se había descubierto que Biden y el ex vicepresidente Mike Pence tenían documentos gubernamentales confidenciales en su poder. (Sin embargo, Biden hasta ahora, a todas luces, ya devolvió los documentos a las autoridades tras descubrirlos, al igual que Pence). Al igual que muchas personas entrevistadas, Estrada confesó que le resultaría difícil ser un jurado imparcial en el caso.“Desde mi perspectiva personal, hasta el momento, no tienen nada contra él”, dijo sobre Trump. “Y no le va a pasar nada. No va a ir a la cárcel. El caso se va a desmoronar y eso es lo que espero que suceda”.Así como Estrada afirmó que su experiencia con una dictadura de izquierda había influido en su esperanza de que Trump sea declarado inocente, Viviana Domínguez, de 63 años, se refirió a su propia experiencia en su Argentina natal, la cual estuvo gobernada por una dictadura militar de derecha de 1976 a 1983, cuando expresó su aversión a Trump.Modesto Estrada apoya a Trump. “El caso se va a desmoronar y eso es lo que espero que suceda”, afirmó, sobre los cargos.Saul Martinez para The New York TimesDomínguez, una restauradora de arte que ha vivido en Miami durante 13 años, calificó a Trump como una “vergüenza” y agregó: “Creo que irá a la cárcel, pero no sé si eso sea una ilusión”.Domínguez describió el caso de los documentos y la todavía considerable base de apoyo de Trump, en términos de una inquietante flexibilización de los estándares cívicos. “Vimos todo eso en mi propio país, cuando las mentiras se hicieron cada vez más grandes”, afirmó. “El margen de tolerancia se hizo cada vez más amplio, de modo que nunca veías el límite. Hablaban de moralidad y de la familia, pero eran las personas más corruptas y obscenas del mundo. Es como un estado de locura”.Roderick Clelland, un veterano de la guerra de Vietnam de 78 años, de West Palm Beach, la ciudad más poblada del condado de Palm Beach, dijo que le preocupaban las implicaciones internacionales de lo que sentía que había sido una actitud laxa de Trump hacia los secretos nacionales.“El mundo entero nos está mirando”, afirmó Clelland. “Y algunos de esos documentos sobre otros países… ¿van a confiar en nosotros? La gente ha sido encarcelada por menos que eso. Así que no puedes simplemente violar la ley y salirte con la tuya. Por eso espero que haya un castigo”.Clelland tuvo cuidado de señalar que no odiaba a Trump. “Pero no me gusta su comportamiento y su actitud”, dijo.A pesar de haber votado dos veces por Trump, Starkey, quien es secretaria del Club Republicano de Palm Beaches, dijo que nunca ha sido una gran admiradora. Pero tanto en 2016 como en 2020, no pudo decidirse a apoyar al candidato más liberal. Por estos días está pensando en votar por Nikki Haley, exembajadora de las Naciones Unidas y exgobernadora republicana de Carolina del Sur. Aclaró que solo hablaba a título personal y no en nombre de su club.Sin embargo, Starkey dijo que la acusación formal contra Trump parecía una estrategia partidista en un momento en que la política estadounidense carece de gran parte de la cortesía entre los dos partidos que recuerda con cariño del pasado. Afirmó que esa era una de las razones por las que tendría dificultades si la eligieran para ser un eventual jurado en el caso. “¿Estás segura de que tienes todos los hechos a favor y en contra?”, se preguntó.Starkey dijo que estaba harta del drama que rodeaba la acusación y que sabía que muchas otras personas pensaban igual que ella.“Solo quiero que todo esto desaparezca”, dijo.Richard Fausset es un corresponsal radicado en Atlanta. Escribe sobre política, cultura, raza, pobreza y el sistema penal del sur de Estados Unidos. Antes trabajó para Los Angeles Times, donde fue corresponsal en Ciudad de México. @RichardFausset More

    • 75 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      n South Florida, Voters Ponder Trump

      by

      The complicated feelings among some residents about Mr. Trump and the case against him reflect the complicated politics of the state. As a registered voter in Palm Beach County, Fla., Bette Anne Starkey knows there is a possibility she could be chosen to serve on a jury in the federal criminal case against former President Donald J. Trump. But even though she is a two-time Trump voter, she cannot really say how she would lean as a juror weighing the case.Echoing Mr. Trump himself, Ms. Starkey, an 81-year-old bookkeeper, used the phrase “witch hunt” in an interview to describe the federal indictment against the former president, which accuses him of knowingly removing classified documents from the White House. But she also struggles to understand why Mr. Trump did not simply return the documents when asked for them, part of her simmering irritation with the 45th president.“I’m sick of hearing about all of his shenanigans,” she said.Her comments reflect the complicated feelings that Mr. Trump can elicit these days even among Republicans who voted for him. But Ms. Starkey is also a reflection of the equally complicated, volatile politics of South Florida, Mr. Trump’s home turf, and the jury pool it offers.It is in diverse, densely populated South Florida that a jury of Mr. Trump’s peers will be called upon to judge his innocence or guilt if the case ever goes to trial, although the exact trial location and jury pool have not been determined.Supporters of the former president gathered near Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Fla., on Sunday.Saul Martinez for The New York TimesThe case was filed in the West Palm Beach court division of the Southern District of Florida, meaning the jury may be selected from registered voters in Palm Beach County, home to Mr. Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort, where he has lived since leaving the White House. Mr. Trump lost Palm Beach County to President Biden by nearly 13 percentage points in 2020.But a jury pool made up of Miami-Dade County voters, to the south of Palm Beach, is also a possibility, particularly if it is determined that the federal courthouse in Miami, where Mr. Trump is expected to make an initial appearance on Tuesday, is best equipped to accommodate what will likely be one of the highest-profile criminal trials in American history.Mr. Trump lost Miami-Dade by only about seven points in the last election, getting strong support from Hispanic voters in particular; more than two-thirds of the county’s residents identify as Hispanic, according to census data.Both counties, however, have grown more Republican in recent years, and Republican candidates have had significant success in statewide races. Mr. Trump won Florida in both 2016 and 2020, and the state has twice elected Gov. Ron DeSantis, currently Mr. Trump’s main rival for the Republican presidential nomination.All of this should offer some comfort to members of Mr. Trump’s defense team, who know it takes only one vote to result in a hung jury. And many South Floridians, like Americans elsewhere in the country, believe that Mr. Trump is a victim of unfair treatment by powerful forces on the political left.George Cadman, 54, is a real estate agent and father of two who said he has not been following the news closely over the last few months. He said he had not heard about the federal charges against Mr. Trump — making him, in some sense, a good candidate for jury service.The case was filed in the West Palm Beach division of the Southern District of Florida, meaning the jury may be selected from registered voters in Palm Beach County, home to Mr. Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort.Saul Martinez for The New York TimesBut Mr. Cadman, who lives in southern Miami-Dade County, also said he supports Trump “100 percent” and that he believes previous investigations of Mr. Trump were politically motivated. Adding that he believes Russia’s 2016 election interference and the scandal about Mr. Trump and Ukraine were hoaxes, he said, “I would be very leery on making a decision on what I think about it,” he said, referring to the new case against Mr. Trump.(In a subsequent phone call, Mr. Cadman said that as much as he loved Mr. Trump, he planned to vote for President Biden in 2024, because rising property values had been good for his job as a real estate agent.)Many of South Florida’s Cuban Americans learned the hard way, during and after the Cuban Revolution, about the impact of politics on even apolitical lives. And for some of the conservatives among them, like Modesto Estrada, a retired businessman who arrived in Miami 18 years ago, Mr. Trump is worth supporting as a powerful brake on Democrats and liberal policies that Mr. Estrada said were “ruining the country” by discouraging people from working.Mr. Estrada, 71, noted that Mr. Biden and former Vice President Mike Pence had also been found to have sensitive government documents in their possession. Like many people interviewed, he said he would have a hard time being an impartial juror in the case.“From my personal perspective, up till now, they don’t have anything on him,” he said of Mr. Trump. “And nothing’s going to happen to him. He’s not going to jail. The case is going to fall apart and that’s what I’m hoping.”Just as Mr. Estrada said his experience with a left-wing dictatorship has colored his hope that Mr. Trump is found not guilty, Viviana Dominguez, 63, referred to her own experience in her native Argentina, which was ruled by a right-wing military dictatorship from 1976 to 1983, as she expressed her dislike of Mr. Trump.Modesto Estrada supports Mr. Trump. “The case is going to fall apart and that’s what I’m hoping,” he said about the charges.Saul Martinez for The New York TimesMs. Dominguez, an art conservator who has lived in Miami for 13 years, called Mr. Trump an “embarrassment,” adding, “I think he’s going to go to jail, but I don’t know if that’s wishful thinking.”She described the documents case, and Mr. Trump’s still-considerable base of support, in terms of an unsettling loosening of civic standards. “We saw all that in my own country, when the lies kept getting bigger and bigger,” she said. “The margin of tolerance kept getting wider and wider, so that you never saw the limit. They would talk of morality and of the family, but they would be the most corrupt, the most obscene people anywhere. It’s like a state of madness.”Roderick Clelland, a 78-year-old Vietnam veteran from West Palm Beach, the most populous city in Palm Beach County, said he was worried about the international implications of what he saw as Mr. Trump’s lax attitude toward sensitive national secrets.“The whole world is watching us.” Mr. Clelland said. “And some of those documents about other countries — are they going to trust us? People have been locked up for less than that. So you can’t just violate the law and get away with it. So I hope there is a penalty.”Mr. Clelland was careful to note that he did not hate Mr. Trump. “But I don’t like his behavior and his attitude,” he said.Despite voting for Mr. Trump twice, Ms. Starkey, the bookkeeper, said she has never been a big fan. But in both 2016 and 2020, she could not bring herself to support the more liberal candidate. These days, she is thinking about voting for Nikki Haley, the former United Nations ambassador and Republican governor of South Carolina.Still, Ms. Starkey said the indictment of Mr. Trump seemed like a partisan move at a time when American politics is lacking much of the comity between the two parties that she remembers fondly from the past. It was one reason, she said, that she would have a hard time if she were picked for an eventual jury in the case: “Do you trust that you’re getting all the facts for and against?” she wondered.She said she was exasperated with the drama surrounding the indictment — and knew there were many others like her.“I just want it to go away,” she said.@Verónica Soledad Zaragovia contributed reporting from Palm Beach County, Fla. More

    • 88 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Trump’s Candidacy: Evaluated by 11 Opinion Writers

      by

      As Republican candidates enter the race for their party’s 2024 presidential nomination, Times columnists, Opinion writers and others will assess their strengths and weaknesses with a scorecard. We rate the candidates on a scale of 1 to 10: 1 means the candidate will probably drop out before any caucus or primary voting; 10 means the candidate has a very strong chance of receiving the party’s nomination next summer. This entry assesses Donald Trump, the former president. 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

    • 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

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Lawyer Resigns From Defense Team in Special Counsel Inquiries

      by

      Timothy Parlatore, who has been defending the former president in the investigations into classified documents and Jan. 6, is leaving as federal prosecutors appear to be nearing decisions about bringing charges.Timothy Parlatore, one of the lawyers representing former President Donald J. Trump in the federal investigations into Mr. Trump’s handling of classified documents and his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, has resigned from the former president’s legal team.In a brief interview on Wednesday, Mr. Parlatore declined to discuss the specific reasons for his departure, but said it was not related to the merits of either inquiry — both of which are being led by a special counsel, Jack Smith. Mr. Parlatore said that he informed Mr. Trump of his decision directly and that he left the legal team on good terms with the former president.His departure was reported earlier by CNN.Mr. Parlatore’s withdrawal from the twin special counsel cases leaves Mr. Trump a lawyer short at a moment when prosecutors under Mr. Smith seem to be nearing the end of their sprawling grand jury investigations and may be approaching a decision about whether to bring charges.Two other lawyers — James Trusty and John Rowley — will for now continue to take the lead in representing Mr. Trump in both of the cases.Mr. Parlatore informed Mr. Trump’s team on Monday that he anticipated withdrawing, according to a person familiar with the events.Since last summer and until recently, Mr. Parlatore played a key role in Mr. Trump’s attempts to use attorney-client and executive privilege to limit the scope of the testimony provided by a series of witnesses who appeared in front of grand juries hearing evidence in both of the matters.Over and over in sealed filings and at closed-door hearings, Mr. Parlatore and his colleagues sought to assert privilege on behalf of Mr. Trump in the hopes of narrowing testimony from top Trump aides like Mark Meadows, the former chief of staff, and former Vice President Mike Pence. But their efforts were almost completely unsuccessful.At one point, Mr. Parlatore himself was subpoenaed to appear in front of the grand jury investigating the documents case. During his appearance, he answered questions about efforts made by Mr. Trump’s legal team to comply with a subpoena issued by the Justice Department last May demanding the return of all classified material in the former president’s possession.Among the things that Mr. Parlatore said he discussed with the grand jury were searches — ordered by a judge in response to a push from the Justice Department — that he oversaw at the end of last year of several properties belonging to Mr. Trump, including Trump Tower in New York; Mr. Trump’s golf club in Bedminster, N.J.; and a storage site in West Palm Beach, Fla. During the search of the storage site, investigators found at least two more documents with classified markings.Those searches followed a search in August of Mar-a-Lago, Mr. Trump’s private club and residence in Florida, by the F.B.I., which led to the discovery of more than 100 classified documents that had not been returned in response to the earlier subpoena.Mr. Parlatore was brought on to the legal team by Boris Epshteyn, who had been serving as something of an in-house counsel, hiring and negotiating contracts for lawyers. Mr. Epshteyn has shown a penchant for delivering sunny news to Mr. Trump despite bad circumstances, and for creating a bottleneck for the lawyers in dealing with the client, according to several people familiar with the events.Last month, Mr. Parlatore wrote a letter to Congress asking lawmakers for help in taking the documents investigation away from prosecutors and giving it to the intelligence community — a move that, among other things, would have removed the threat of a criminal indictment against Mr. Trump.The letter also seemed to preview some of Mr. Trump’s potential defenses in the documents case, noting that during his chaotic departure from the White House, aides “quickly packed everything into boxes and shipped them to Florida.” This hasty process, Mr. Parlatore argued, suggested that “White House institutional processes,” not “intentional decisions by President Trump,” were responsible for sensitive material being hauled away.Last week, Mr. Trump appeared to undercut those assertions on live television, declaring at a CNN town hall event that he knowingly removed government records from the White House and claiming that he was allowed to take anything he wanted with him as his personal property.“I took the documents,” he said at the event. “I’m allowed to.” More