Jul 09, 2020 · NEW YORK (Reuters) - Michael Cohen, U.S. President Donald Trump's former personal attorney, was taken to a federal jail on Thursday after refusing to agree to a gag order as a condition of serving...
May 06, 2022 · We do not know when Trump will be subpoenaed, indicted, arrested and sent to prison because U.S. Attorney General Merrick B. Garland has taken the wrong approach to investigate the ongoing efforts to overthrow the United States of America by former President Donald J. Trump. The investigation should begin at the top if that is where the evidence is at, …
Feb 24, 2022 · Trump’s former attorney canceled his appearance at the last minute. But if the House panel has $325, there might be another way. 5/6/2022. life after roe. life after roe.
Mar 07, 2022 · Two top prosecutors leading the criminal investigation into former President Donald Trump and his business resigned after the Manhattan district attorney said he was not prepared to authorize an ...
This week, Cohen had sued US Attorney General William Barr and the prison bureau director over the so-called "gag order".
Ex-Trump lawyer Michael Cohen released from prison after 'retaliation' ruling. US President Donald Trump's ex-lawyer Michael Cohen has been released from prison after a judge ruled he was sent back to jail in retaliation for writing a tell-all book. The judge ordering his release said the government was retaliating when it sent Cohen back ...
The most likely scenario is that the Trump Organization will be criminally charged with a financial crime (yes, organizations themselves can be charged and criminally fined if convicted). And if the New York prosecutors have enough documentary and testimonial evidence that Donald Trump knew about those financial crimes, they would be likely to bring charges against the former president, as well.
There is a world of difference between obtaining a criminal indictment, which requires only "probable cause," and a criminal conviction, which requires a finding that the defendant is "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.". The latter is, for good reason, the highest burden of proof that exists in our legal system.
In fact, it's possible that all of the above concerns played roles in the apparent decision by New York federal prosecutors not to pursue charges against Trump over allegations that he made "hush money" payments to Stormy Daniels; the Federal Election Commission has similarly declined to take any action regarding those payments.
Both would be big cases, but they would also be politically charged cases, and therein lies another problem for prosecutors. Prosecutors know a criminal charge isn't a conviction. There is a world of difference between obtaining a criminal indictment, which requires only "probable cause," and a criminal conviction, which requires a finding that the defendant is "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." The latter is, for good reason, the highest burden of proof that exists in our legal system.
Such cases leave the impression, perhaps unfairly, that either the defendant isn't being prosecuted for the full scope of his or her illegal conduct or that the defendant is being singled out for prosecution simply because he or she is a high-profile person. Neither takeaway seems particularly satisfying.
A former president of the United States is unquestionably a big target and therefore falls into either category three or four. But there are risks to both approaches.
That is true no matter who the defendant is, but in the case of a high-profile defendant , prosecutors aren't likely to file charges unless they are as certain as humanly possible that they will be able to obtain a conviction. And because prosecutors must convince an unanimous jury of 12 ordinary citizens that a defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, bringing a politically charged or divisive case puts that certainty further out of reach.