Former President Donald Trump was indicted yet again on July 27, 2023, by federal prosecutors.
The fresh indictment alleges that former President Donald Trump attempted to 'delete security camera footage at the Mar-a-Lago Club to conceal information from the FBI and grand jury' by telling a maintenance worker at the club to erase it.
Former President Donald Trump was indicted yet again on July 27, 2023, by federal prosecutors.
While many were anticipating an imminent indictment related to Trump바카라s actions on January 6, 2021, when a group of his followers violently stormed the US Capitol in an attempt to disrupt the certification of Democrat Joe Biden바카라s election, the new indictment instead added to the charges Trump already faced for hoarding, mishandling and illegally sharing presidential documents after he left office and refusing to return them.
The new indictment 바카라called a 바카라blockbuster바카라 on CNN by former Manhattan prosecutor Karen Agnifilo바카라 alleges that Trump attempted to 바카라delete security camera footage at the Mar-a-Lago Club to conceal information from the FBI and grand jury바카라 by telling a maintenance worker at the club to erase it.
That worker, named in the indictment as Carlos De Oliveira, also faces charges now of obstruction in the new indictment.
The Conversation has published stories by experts on various aspects of the documents case and the unprecedented indictment of a former president. Here are a selection of them to provide background on the newly filed charges.
Before he entered academia, University of Southern California international relations scholar Jeffrey Fields worked for many years as an analyst at both the State Department and the Department of Defence. He held a top-secret clearance and 바카라frequently worked with classified information and participated in classified meetings바카라.
Fields explains that 바카라classified information is the kind of material that the US government or an agency deems sensitive enough to national security that access to it must be controlled and restricted바카라.
There are several degrees of classification, he writes. 바카라Documents related to nuclear weapons will have different classification levels depending on the sensitivity of the information contained. Documents containing information related to nuclear weapons design or their location would be highly classified.바카라 Such documents, writes Fields, 바카라must be handled in a way that protects the integrity and confidentiality of the information they contain바카라.
Want to know more? Fields helps you understand the different classification levels, and who gets to determine what levels each document is assigned.
The documents case rests on provisions of the Espionage Act, which, despite its name, covers a lot more crimes than just spying.
Loyola University Chicago바카라s Thomas A Durkin and Joseph Ferguson, attorneys who specialise in and teach national security law, write that 바카라one portion of the act 바카라 does relate to spying for foreign governments, for which the maximum sentence is life imprisonment.바카라
More commonly, they write, as with the Trump investigation, 바카라the act applies to the unauthorised gathering, possessing or transmitting of certain sensitive government information바카라.
A violation of the Espionage Act, then, does not require an intention to aid a foreign power.
And Democrats have violated the act: 바카라Two recent senior Democratic administration officials 바카라Sandy Berger, national security adviser during the Clinton administration, and David Petraeus, CIA director during the Obama administration바카라 each pleaded guilty to misdemeanours under the threat of Espionage Act prosecution바카라, write Durkin and Ferguson.
Trump has attacked the head of the Department of Justice investigations into his conduct, Special Counsel Jack Smith, as 바카라deranged바카라.
He바카라s declared that the previous indictment represented 바카라weaponised바카라 politics. After the new indictment was revealed, he told Fox News that it constituted 바카라election interference at the highest level바카라 and said the allegations were 바카라ridiculous바카라.
But national security law scholar Dakota Rudesill, who teaches at The Ohio State University, says the documents prosecution of Trump is lawful, constitutional, precedented, nonpartisan and merited.
바카라Trump and his allies have argued that it is completely inappropriate for the former president to be charged,바카라 writes Rudesill. 바카라But no part of the Constitution, no statute and no Supreme Court precedent sets a former chief executive above the law.바카라
American history, Rudesill reminds us, 바카라is replete with criminal charges against state officials, vice presidents 바카라 a former one during the founding era, and a sitting one in the 1970s 바카라 members of Congress and other prominent politicians바카라.
Rudesill바카라s essay walks readers through the charges Trump has made about the investigation 바카라 and the charges made by the investigators against Trump.
바카라Trump is right that his is inevitably a sensitive case because of his continued presence in the political arena,바카라 Rudesill writes. 바카라What he does not acknowledge is that maintaining the bedrock legal principle of equal justice requires avoiding twin hazards: politically motivated prosecutions and exempting elite politicians from the law.바카라
Despite the extraordinary circumstances of facing multiple criminal indictments, there바카라s nothing stopping Trump from moving ahead with his presidential campaign.
Article II of the US Constitution sets forth very explicit qualifications for the presidency: The president must be 35 years of age, a US resident for 14 years and a natural-born citizen, writes legal scholar Stefanie Lindquist of Arizona State University.
바카라In cases involving analogous qualifications for members of Congress, the Supreme Court has held that such qualifications form a "constitutional ceiling바카라 바카라 prohibiting any additional qualifications to be imposed by any means,바카라 she writes.
So, because the Constitution does not require that the president be free from indictment, conviction or prison, says Lindquist, "it follows that a person under indictment or in prison may run for the office and may even serve as president.바카라
That may be hard, Lindquist acknowledges.
바카라There seems no question that indictment, conviction or both 바카라 let alone a prison sentence 바카라 would significantly compromise a president바카라s ability to function in office,바카라 says Lindquist. 바카라And the Constitution doesn바카라t provide an easy answer to the problem posed by such a compromised chief executive.바카라
In other words, the country is in uncharted territory.
(The article is written by Naomi Schalit, Democracy Editor, The Conversation US. It is being republished via PTI from The Conversation where it was originally published.)