Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘indictments’

All the King’s Upgrades: There May Be Less Than Meets the Eye in the Adams Indictment


By: Jonathan Turley | September 27, 2024

Read more at https://jonathanturley.org/2024/09/27/all-the-kings-upgrades-there-may-be-less-than-meets-the-eye-in-the-adams-indictment/

Below is my column in the New York Post on the indictment of Mayor Eric Adams. The most serious charges may be the foreign campaign contributions. However, the indictment is not nearly as overwhelming as suggested by the government. That may be why they are openly threatening Adams associates to cooperate or face ruin.

Here is the column:

The federal five-count indictment of New York Mayor Eric Adams is on its face a damning document of alleged public corruption. The government is alleging that Turkish officials saw Adams as a rising star in the Democratic Party and started to groom him for influence.

However, once beyond the details of the opulent rooms and flight upgrades, there may be less here than meets the eye in some of these charges. The campaign-contribution violations raise serious problems for Adams in the alleged solicitation of unlawful foreign contributions. Yet the counts must be read with caution. We have not seen the specific defenses to the allegations of using “straw men” to funnel unlawful contributions and the alleged favors bestowed on contributors. Indictments are one-sided and highly slanted interpretations of the facts by prosecutors to secure a conviction.

For example, many of the gifts from Turkish sources were realized in the form of upgrades on flights to business class or expensive hotel suites. It is not clear what Adams knew of the logistics for such travel or their inclusion in annual reports. Despite their public personas, many populist politicians tend to be a pampered class who expect to be feted in the best quarters as they speak as the “voice of the people.”

That was captured most vividly by NYC Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez sashaying at the Met Gala in a designer dress reading “tax the rich.” It was a scene with a crushing irony. The dress itself was worth more than some people make in a year, and it was just “loaned” to AOC despite being made specifically for her. She also did not pay for her ticket, which would cost $35,000.

It triggered an ethics investigation and allegations of ethical violations. In one night, Ocasio-Cortez flaunted roughly half of the value of the alleged Adams gifts as she paraded as a social warrior among the social elite. The truly hilarious aspect was that it was the elite who were thrilled by the demonstration and subsidized it.

The Adams allegations would constitute a fairly crude form of corruption by today’s standards. For the Biden family, it looks like small potatoes. Adams lacked a Hunter and the type of labyrinth of accounts maintained by the Bidens to funnel millions from foreign sources.

One of the most discussed allegations concerns a high-rise building built by Turkish friends in Manhattan to serve as their new consulate. The Turks wanted the building opened before the arrival of the Turkish president in 2021, strongman Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. The problem is that, according to prosecutors, New York Fire Department officials found an array of dangerous defects in the building and believed that it was a fire risk. They refused to allow the building to open until it met those standards. The government alleges that Turkish officials immediately dialed up their well-groomed ally, Adams, and told him that it was “his turn” to support Turkey. Adams intervened and prosecutors say that FDNY officials were afraid for their jobs.

Once again, however, Adams has defenses. He can argue that New York is the home of the United Nations and a large population of diplomats and international organizations. This was a foreign country seeking to open a consulate and he intervened to avoid an embarrassing diplomatic tiff.

Suggesting that a push to cut short fire inspections may be difficult to maintain under a bribery theory. That was the type of expansive case that government attorney Jack Smith used against former Virginia Republican Gov. Robert McDonnell and it failed spectacularly before the Supreme Court. There are other reasons besides flight upgrades why Adams might have facilitated a speed up of building approvals.

In the end, this is a Bob Menendez-lite indictment.  Failing to publicly list how you moved from economy to business class on flights is hardly the stuff of “All the King’s Men.” It is more like “All the King’s Upgrades.” The biggest problem for Adams is that the US Attorney’s Office went public with a threat for all of those who do not cooperate and pledged that more will be “held accountable.” In other words, the indictment amplified the tune in a game of musical chairs. Anyone close to Adams may want to sit down before the music stops. That means that Adams can expect close associates to be testifying against him with the enthusiasm of those threatened with ruin by federal prosecutors.

If Eric Adams is convicted, it will be at the hands of his associates. The jury will not be particularly sympathetic with a politician snaring the Bentley Suite at the St. Regis Istanbul. Prosecutors love to play on such opulence like their use of Paul Manafort’s $15,000 Ostrich coat.

Combined with former friends and associates, it may be enough for the ultimate upgrade for Adams from business class to a federal cellblock.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

Category:

corruption, Crime, Law, Political

Tagged with:

Judge Dismisses 6 Charges in Georgia Trump Indictment Ahead of Expected Fani Willis Decision


By: Katelynn Richardson / @katesrichardson / March 13, 2024

Read more at https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/03/13/judge-dismisses-6-charges-in-georgia-trump-indictment-ahead-of-expected-fani-willis-decision/

Judge Scott McAfee sided with defendants in Georgia in a motion to toss certain counts of former President Donald Trump’s indictment. Pictured: Trump speaks during an election-night watch party at Mar-a-Lago on March 5, 2024, in West Palm Beach, Florida. (Photo: Win McNamee/Getty Images)

The judge overseeing the racketeering case against former President Donald Trump and his co-defendants in Georgia dismissed six counts of the indictment Wednesday. Judge Scott McAfee, who is expected to soon decide whether Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis will be disqualified from the case over an alleged conflict of interest, sided with defendants in a separate motion to toss certain counts.

dailycallerlogoHe wrote that six counts did not “give the Defendants enough information to prepare their defenses intelligently, as the Defendants could have violated the Constitutions and thus the statute in dozens, if not hundreds, of distinct ways.”

McAfee’s ruling said that the state can still bring new indictments on the six charges, which all center on “Solicitation of Violation of Oath by Public Officer.”

“The Court’s concern is less that the State has failed to allege sufficient conduct of the Defendants—in fact it has alleged an abundance,” he wrote. “However, the lack of detail concerning an essential legal element is, in the undersigned’s opinion, fatal. As written, these six counts contain all the essential elements of the crimes but fail to allege sufficient detail regarding the nature of their commission, i.e., the underlying felony solicited.”

“Under the standards articulated by our appellate courts, the special demurrer must be granted, and Counts 2, 5, 6, 23, 28, and 38 quashed,” he wrote.

McAfee noted in a footnote that his order does not “mean the entire indictment is dismissed.”

“The State may also seek an indictment supplementing these six counts,” he wrote. He also denied defendants’ efforts to dismiss certain overt acts contained in the indictment.

“The Court made the correct legal decision to grant the special demurrers and quash important counts of the indictment brought by DA Fani Willis,” Steve Sadow, Trump’s lead defense counsel, said in a statement provided to the Daily Caller News Foundation.

“The counts dismissed against President Trump are 5, 28 and 38, which falsely claimed that he solicited GA public officials to violate their oath of office,” Sadow continued. “The ruling is a correct application of the law, as the prosecution failed to make specific allegations of any alleged wrongdoing on those counts. The entire prosecution of President Trump is political, constitutes election interference, and should be dismissed.”

McAfee is also expected to rule on the motion to disqualify Willis by the end of the week. Trump co-defendant Michael Roman accused Willis in a Jan. 8 motion of financially benefiting from appointing her lover Nathan Wade to work as special prosecutor on the case.

Willis and Wade have denied the relationship began before he was hired, though a close friend of Willis testified it began in 2019 and Wade’s former law partner supplied details about their relationship starting earlier to the attorney who filed the motion.

Originally published by the Daily Caller News Foundation

Category:

Law, Political

Tagged with:

Nightmare Scenario: How a Trump Trial Could Now Run Up to (or Through) the 2024 Election


By: Jonathan Turley | March 11, 2024

Below is my column in the Hill on the real possibility of a federal trial of former president Donald Trump just before or even through the 2024 election. The claim that this schedule is the result of treating Trump like other criminal defendants is increasingly dubious given statements of courts and the Special Counsel.

Here is the column:

“This trial will not yield to the election cycle.” Those words of U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan last year made clear that she will not consider that Donald Trump will likely be the 2024 Republican presidential nominee in setting the schedule for his federal trial in Washington, D.C.

Most recently, in the federal prosecution in Florida, Special Counsel Jack Smith declared that he will not consider himself bound by the Justice Department’s longstanding policy of not bringing charges or holding trials of candidates close to an election.

With the Supreme Court reviewing the immunity question (and a decision not expected until June), a nightmare scenario is unfolding in which Trump could be tried not just before the general election, but actually through November’s election.

Chutkan has insisted that her refusal to consider Trump’s candidacy is simply denying special treatment to the former president. But there is nothing typical about how she and others have handled the case. The fact that Chutkan was pushing for a March trial date shows just how extraordinary her handling has been.

In the D.C. courts, with thousands of stacked up cases, that would be a rocket docket for a complex case of this kind. There are roughly 770,000 pending cases in roughly 100 district courts around the country. The backlog of pending criminal cases in the federal court system increased by more than a quarter in the last five years. Even when defendants plead guilty, criminal cases average 10 months. If a trial is needed, it runs on average to two years, absent serious complications over classified or privileged material. Smith indicted Trump less than a year ago.

At every juncture, Smith has tried to expedite and spur the case along. This has included an attempt to cut off standard appellate options for Trump. It seems as if the entire point is to try Trump before the election. Smith has offered no reason, other than that he wants voters to consider the outcome of the trial. It is a rare acknowledgement of a desire for a trial to become a factor in an election.

Judge Chutkan has shown the same determination. The judge was criticized for comments she made before any charges were brought that strongly suggested she thought Trump should be criminally charged. Chutkan told one defendant that he showed “blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day.” In another case, Chutkan told the defendant that it was unfair that he might go to prison but “the architects of that horrific event will likely never be charged.”

When asked to recuse herself, Chutkan denied the clear implication of her own words. She insisted that she has not expressly stated that “’President Trump should be prosecuted’ and imprisoned… And the defense does not cite any instance of the court ever uttering those words or anything similar.”

Of course, neither the court nor the prosecutors seem willing to apply a similarly deferential view of the meaning of Trump’s words within the context of the case. There, the implications are sufficient for that “one person” described earlier by the court.

Chutkan is now reportedly telling parties in other cases that she will be out of the country in August, and that defendants will have to delay any proceedings in light of her plans…unless she can try Trump. She told lawyers that she will stick with her schedule unless “I’m in trial in another matter that has not yet returned to my calendar.”

Given the apparent motivation of the trial court to try Trump before the election, the only other source of restraint would be the Justice Department itself. Smith, however, has insisted that he will show no such restraint, even if he tries Trump through the election.

In his filings in Florida, Smith insisted that the oft-cited Justice Department policy to avoid such proceedings within 60 days of an election would not be applied in Trump’s case. He insisted that, since everyone knows about the allegations, there would be no harm or foul in holding him for trial for the weeks before the election as his opponent, President Biden, is free to traverse the country campaigning.

Smith’s position was applauded by commentators who had previously invoked the rule to oppose charges that might have helped Trump before prior elections. Take Andrew Weissmann, who served as the controversial top aide to Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Now an MSNBC legal analyst, Weissmann assured viewers that there was no problem trying Trump just before the election because this is just “an internal rule. It is not a law.”

He then added “Second, the rule does not apply! For anyone who has been at the Justice Department, this is such a red herring.” He insisted this is only meant to avoid some “covert cases” being tried “because you don’t want to influence the election when that person — the candidate — doesn’t have an opportunity to get to trial.”

However, when the issue was the possibility of Special Counsel John Durham charging figures in the Russia investigation before the 2020 election, Weissmann and Professor Ryan Goodman wrote a column not only invoking the rule but encouraging prosecutors to refuse to assist Durham.

I have previously written about the ambiguity of this rule and the selectivity of its applications. However, Weissmann and Goodman were adamant that such prosecutions would be dangerous. Even though no actual election candidate would have been charged, they invoked this Justice Department “norm” and declared, “The Justice Department should not take action that could distort an election and influence the electorate. If someone is charged immediately before an election, for instance, that person has no time to offer a defense to counter the charges. The closer the election, the greater the risk that the department is impermissibly acting based on political considerations, which is always prohibited.”

It is certainly true that these charges have been known for a while, but Trump may not have an ability to present a complete defense before the election. It is also clear that he will have to choose between campaigning for office and defending his liberty.

Moreover, this is the leading candidate for the presidency, and the opponent to the current incumbent. A 2023 poll found that a 47 percent plurality of Americans already believe the charges are politically motivated. That appearance will only worsen as the election approaches, a recognition that should force a modicum of restraint upon both the court and the prosecution. Finally, Smith is referencing the election as the reason to expedite the trial precisely because it may have an influence on voters.

The Trump trials are troubling precisely because they are being handled differently because of who the defendant is. No one can seriously suggest that Judge Chutkan would be moving other cases or canceling trips in order to shoehorn them into the calendar this year, if it were not for the election and the name of the defendant. Such cases are, after all, notorious for taking years to work out complicated pre-trial matters.

Most citizens already see that reality. State prosecutors in New York and Georgia waited for years to charge Trump, then pushed for expedited schedules in order to try him before the election.

That brings us back to Judge Chutkan’s pledge to “not yield to the election cycle.” Yet the expedited effort of the court seems clearly motivated by the election cycle. She and Smith are depending on the election cycle as they struggle to pull Trump into court at the height of a presidential campaign. It is a schedule conceived for the “one person” described by Chutkan in the earlier cases. As the calendar continues to shrink, claims of blind justice increasingly look like the blind pursuit of a specific person.

Jonathan Turley is the J.B. & Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University Law School.

Category:

Law, Political

Tagged with:

To Understand the Latest Crazy Trump Indictment, Check Out The 6 Types of Charges


BY: MARGOT CLEVELAND | AUGUST 16, 2023

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2023/08/16/to-understand-the-latest-crazy-trump-indictment-check-out-the-6-types-of-charges/

Donald Trump

Author Margot Cleveland profile MARGOT CLEVELAND

VISIT ON TWITTER@PROFMJCLEVELAND

MORE ARTICLES

Late Monday, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis charged former President Donald Trump and 18 other defendants in a 98-page indictment that included a total of 41 different counts.

The defendants are already fighting back, with Trump’s former chief of staff, Mark Meadows, seeking to remove the case to federal court based on a statute that protects federal officials from state court prosecution for official conduct. More counteroffensives will likely follow, with other former federal officials, including Trump, presumably also seeking removal to federal court, while the remaining defendants will probably expeditiously move to dismiss the indictment on a variety of grounds. 

To get a handle on the indictment and to stay current with the various developments, it is helpful to put the charges into one of six buckets, starting with the biggest one: the alleged RICO conspiracy. 

Bucket 1: RICO 

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) count runs some 70 pages and says all 19 defendants, “while associated with an enterprise, unlawfully conspired and endeavored to conduct and participate in, directly and indirectly, such enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity.” The indictment next defines the “enterprise” as “a group of individuals associated in fact,” who “had connections and relationships with one another” and “functioned as a continuing unit for a common purpose of achieving the objectives of the enterprise,” which Willis maintains was “to unlawfully change the outcome of the election in favor of Trump.”

There are several problems with the RICO count, most fundamentally, as Andrew McCarthy explained in an enlightening article, RICO requires an “enterprise,” which, while not necessarily a formal entity, needs to be an identifiable group. The RICO crime, then, is “being a member of the enterprise that commits crimes, not the commission of any particular crime.”

But there must be some sort of “enterprise,” and here Willis conflates the objective — keeping Trump in power — with “the enterprise.” “It was that objective, and not the sustaining of any group, that brought them together; and once that objective was attained or conclusively defeated, the group — to the dubious extent it really was an identifiable group — would (and did) melt away,” McCarthy wrote. It’s a “good sign that you’re not dealing with a RICO enterprise,” the former federal prosecutor explained.

Without an “enterprise,” there can be no RICO crime, and the facts alleged in the indictment are such that the defendants will likely soon seek dismissal of that count. Now, Georgia law differs from federal law on RICO, and there is no saying how the state court will interpret its own RICO statute, but from a legal perspective, the claim is exceedingly weak.

The second fundamental problem with the RICO count is factual: Willis portrays the defendants as trying to unlawfully change the election in Trump’s favor, but the many actions Trump and others took involved legal proceedings and efforts to convince the legislative bodies to use their authority to address what the defendants saw as a fatally flawed election. A court is unlikely to toss the complaint on this ground, however, with factual disputes ones only a jury can resolve. 

However, if the court holds, as it appears it should, that the RICO count fails as a matter of law because there was no “enterprise,” then that factual dispute is irrelevant. Likewise, the 160-some “acts” Willis included in the indictment — everything from Trump declaring victory on Nov. 4 to tweeting that followers should watch a television newscast — allegedly in furtherance of the “RICO” conspiracy become irrelevant. 

Bucket 2: Alternate Electors

The second-biggest bucket concerns the counts related to the naming of alternative Trump electors. The crimes alleged here range from soliciting individuals to violate their oaths of office, to conspiring to file false statements or documents, to forgery. Counts 2, 6, 8-19, 23, and 37 alleged these and other crimes against various defendants all arising out of Republicans appointing an alternative slate of Trump electors who would vote for Trump in the event he prevailed in his then-pending Georgia lawsuit.

While the legacy media continue to frame these individuals as “fake electors,” as I’ve previously detailed, that is fake news. Rather, legal precedent indicates that alternative electors should be named to protect a candidate challenging the outcome of an election, as Trump was in Georgia and elsewhere. That is precisely what Democrats did in Hawaii in 1960 when Richard Nixon had been declared the victor in the state, but John F. Kennedy’s court contest remained viable. 

As a matter of law, these counts should all be dismissed because Republicans naming alternate electors was not a crime — no matter how much the press wants you to believe otherwise.

Bucket 3: Petitioning the Government for Redress

The crimes charged in Counts 5, 28, 38, and 39 fit into a third bucket that consists of efforts by Trump and others to petition the government for redress. Here, the crimes charged include solicitation of violations of oath by public officers and the making of false statements during those efforts, but the common theme is that the defendants sought to have Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger or the Georgia legislature address Trump’s allegations of voting irregularities or fraud. 

There is nothing criminal, however, in asking the secretary of state to use his authority to investigate and respond to voting irregularities or to ask the legislature to call a special session to name Trump electors. On the contrary, those activities would seemingly be protected by the constitutional guarantee of the right to petition the government for redress.

Bucket 4: False Statements

The fourth bucket holds numerous counts against a variety of defendants with the common theme being false statements charges. Count 27 alleged false statements were included in one of Trump’s election lawsuits, but lawyers are entitled to rely on information provided for others, making this count weak. Counts 7, 24, 25, and 26 all charged individual defendants with making false statements to Georgia House or Senate committees. The main issue here will be whether the defendants made the statements knowing they were false. 

Count 22 charges an attempt to make a false statement and concerns a letter DOJ lawyer Jeff Clark drafted and recommended be sent to the Georgia legislature. As I previously detailed, however, there was no impropriety in Clark’s drafting of that letter. Clark will also likely succeed in having the case against him removed to federal court and then dismissed. 

Counts 40 and 41 both involve charges of lying as well, with Count 40 alleging one defendant lied to Fulton County investigators and Count 41 alleging perjury before a grand jury. Given the target on these defendants’ backs, it’s difficult to believe they knowingly lied, but that question may end up being left to a jury to decide.

Bucket 5: Communications Related to Ruby Freeman

Counts 20, 21, 30, and 31 all involve charges concerning efforts to supposedly influence the testimony of Ruby Freeman, who was an election worker at the State Farm Arena. Here, the theory seems to be that some of the defendants attempted to pressure Freeman to lie about what happened during the vote counting. Again, it may be left to a jury to decide this issue.

Bucket 6: Accessing Voting Machines and Election Data

The final category of charges involves efforts by Sidney Powell and others to allegedly illegally access voting machines and election results. Counts 32-36 allege various crimes related to those efforts, including conspiracy to commit election fraud by tampering with machines. Once the defendants charged in those counts respond, it will be easier to assess the criminal theories proffered and any weakness in the claims.

For now, though, watch for the federal court’s holding on whether Meadows, Clark, Trump, and potentially others have the right to remove the case to federal court. Simultaneously, expect the other defendants to seek dismissal of all or part of the indictment, likely narrowing this criminal case down substantially.

Margot Cleveland is The Federalist’s senior legal correspondent. She is also a contributor to National Review Online, the Washington Examiner, Aleteia, and Townhall.com, and has been published in the Wall Street Journal and USA Today. Cleveland is a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Prize—the law school’s highest honor. She later served for nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk for a federal appellate judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Cleveland is a former full-time university faculty member and now teaches as an adjunct from time to time. As a stay-at-home homeschooling mom of a young son with cystic fibrosis, Cleveland frequently writes on cultural issues related to parenting and special-needs children. Cleveland is on Twitter at @ProfMJCleveland. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.

Category:

Law, Political

Tagged with:

Rep. Hinson to Newsmax: Trump Indictments ‘Politicized’


By Sandy Fitzgerald    |   Tuesday, 15 August 2023 10:39 AM EDT

Read more at https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax-tv/ashley-hinson-trump-indictments/2023/08/15/id/1130805/

The indictments against former President Donald Trump are “clearly politicized” and come as the Biden family “continues to dodge accountability” on the accusations that have been made about them, Rep. Ashley Hinson said on Newsmax Tuesday. 

“It seems every single time there’s an indictment that comes down, it’s right after we’ve heard yet another damaging report about the Biden family,” the Iowa Republican said on Newsmax’s “Wake Up America.” “I can tell you what I’m hearing from Iowans, and it’s that they are sick and tired of this two-tier justice system. It’s rules for thee and not for me, whether it’s the Manhattan DA or the Fulton County, Ga., DA.” 

Meanwhile, the Biden administration continues “using the weaponized Department of Justice to be able to go after their political opponents,” said Hinson. 

This is why Republicans “need to do everything we can to fire Joe Biden, restore faith in our justice system, and make sure that these people who are designed to enforce the law are doing so with equal application of justice,” she said. 

Trump, along with several co-defendants including ex-New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, was indicted in Georgia Monday night for allegedly meddling in the results of the 2020 election in the state, where he lost to Joe Biden. The grand jury brought 13 felony charges against the former president, including violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, and violating his oath of office.

Hinson said the indictments also mean Republicans have their work cut out for them, and she’s glad for Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., and his work in leading the House Oversight Committee’s investigation of the Biden family. 

“We’re doing as much as we can through the appropriations process as well to put pressure on all of these departments to make sure they’re actually following the law and giving us as members of Congress the documents we need to make sure we’re holding the right people accountable,” said Hinson.

Meanwhile, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis has called for the Georgia trial to be held in six months, or just after the Iowa caucuses in January and as other states move into their primary seasons. 

“It’s important that we vet these presidential candidates because who we have in the White House in 2024 is going to be really, really important to making sure we can again restore justice here,” said Hinson. “When we keep hearing about these stretches that are being used for political purposes, that is not what everyday Americans are concerned that they’re going to be next. That’s what I think everybody’s worried about, and we need to make sure that we are refocusing it on that. Jan. 15 is Iowa’s caucus day and can’t come soon enough.”


About NEWSMAX TV:

NEWSMAX is the fastest-growing cable news channel in America!

Sandy Fitzgerald ✉

Sandy Fitzgerald is a writer for Newsmax. She has more than 35 years of experience in the news industry including editing, reporting, writing, and page design for newspapers, magazines, and websites. She has been with Newsmax since 2011.

Related Stories:

© 2023 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Ted Cruz: Trump Indictment Is Election Tampering for 2024


By Sandy Fitzgerald    |   Thursday, 27 July 2023 08:59 AM EDT

Read more at https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax-tv/ted-cruz-donald-trump-indictments/2023/07/27/id/1128683/

Democrats “hate democracy” and are “deathly afraid” that voters will elect former President Donald Trump to return to the White House, so they are pushing for him to be indicted on various charges to keep that from happening, Sen. Ted Cruz tells Newsmax.

“They are trying to use the machinery of law enforcement to prosecute him,” the Texas Republican said on Newsmax’s “Eric Bolling The Balance” on Wednesday night. “I think these indictments are a disgrace.”

Trump last week said he got a letter from special counsel Jack Smith to inform him that he is the target of the federal investigation into the Jan. 6, 2021 events at the Capitol. The letter comes after Trump was charged and pleaded not guilty in June to a 37-count federal indictment in connection with his handling of presidential documents. Trump also pleaded not guilty in April to a 34-count indictment filed in New York through Democrat Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.

The former president, now a front-runner in the campaign for the GOP’s 2024 presidential nomination, is also under investigation in Georgia concerning allegations that he tried to overturn the state’s results in the 2020 presidential election.

Cruz told Bolling that he not only believes indicting Trump in connection with the Jan. 6 protests would be an “abuse of power,” but he thinks “each of the Trump indictments we’ve seen so far are abuses of power.”

“They are politicizing the Justice Department,” the senator said. “This Department of Justice, this attorney general, this FBI is the most politicized and weaponized we’ve ever seen.”

Further, Cruz called for Attorney Merrick Garland’s impeachment and removal from office “for allowing the Department of Justice to be turned into a partisan hammer to attack the political enemies of the White House.”

About NEWSMAX TV:

NEWSMAX is the fastest-growing cable news channel in America!

Related Stories:

© 2023 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Tag Cloud