THREAD: Why is the investigation of Donald Trump taking much longer than it took the DOJ to investigate and charge Sam Bankman-Fried?
1/ Earlier today, the Washington Post reported that Special Counsel Jack Smith sent a grand jury subpoena to the Georgia Secretary of State, along with other state officials in states that were hotly contested in the 2020 election. washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/…
2/ That news broke shortly after the DOJ announced that Sam Bankman-Fried, the founder and CEO of FTX and previously believed to be one of the world's richest people, was arrested pursuant to a sealed indictment.
FTX collapsed early last month.
FTX collapsed early last month.
https://twitter.com/SDNYnews/status/1602451395910803457
3/ When I tweeted about the Special Counsel's grand jury subpoena, I noted that the January 6th (and associated "fake elector") investigation appeared to be in a very early stage.
Ever since, my comments are full of this question: Why is Trump taking so much longer than SBF?
Ever since, my comments are full of this question: Why is Trump taking so much longer than SBF?
4/ One thing to keep in mind is that SBF's case is the *exception*, not the rule, when it comes to complex financial crimes.
When I was a federal prosecutor, I investigated and prosecuted complex financial cases, often in parallel with the SEC. Those cases often took *years.*
When I was a federal prosecutor, I investigated and prosecuted complex financial cases, often in parallel with the SEC. Those cases often took *years.*
5/ We haven't read the indictment yet, but on its face, SBF's actions are difficult to justify or explain.
His customers were told that their $ would remain at FTX. A lot of that $ went to a different company, some went to SBF (via a loan).
His customers were told that their $ would remain at FTX. A lot of that $ went to a different company, some went to SBF (via a loan).
6/ It's like if your local brokerage sent your money to a totally different company or gave it as a "loan" to its CEO without your approval. Very hard to explain.
On top of that, SBF was talking to everyone who would listen (journalists, Twitter) and answering tough questions.
On top of that, SBF was talking to everyone who would listen (journalists, Twitter) and answering tough questions.
7/ As it turns out, committing what appears to be an obvious fraud and then incriminating yourself repeatedly is a good way to speed up the investigation against you.
So what about Donald Trump? Didn't he do the exact same thing?
So what about Donald Trump? Didn't he do the exact same thing?
8/ As a starting point, the crimes Trump is alleged to have committed in connection to January 6th are very complicated.
SBF committed garden variety fraud. Trump engaged in an unprecedented scheme to overturn an election. A scheme that has never been seen or charged before.
SBF committed garden variety fraud. Trump engaged in an unprecedented scheme to overturn an election. A scheme that has never been seen or charged before.
9/ Is it a crime to try to persuade your VP to set aside genuine electors? To try to persuade state legislators to do the same? That's not as clear as a typical fraud case.
What about trying to persuade the Attorney General to issue false statements to the State of Georgia?
What about trying to persuade the Attorney General to issue false statements to the State of Georgia?
10/ That is closer to something typically charged, but they have to prove that Trump knowingly and willfully attempted to cause a false statement to be made.
I'm not saying a case cannot be made, but it's not a case you charge without crossing your Ts and dotting your Is.
I'm not saying a case cannot be made, but it's not a case you charge without crossing your Ts and dotting your Is.
11/ (Neither are fraud cases, which can be difficult to try and win. As I've said before in this thread, SBF's case is a rare exception.)
So what about the Mar-a-Lago documents case? That stands alone, apart from everything else Trump has been accused or suspected of doing.
So what about the Mar-a-Lago documents case? That stands alone, apart from everything else Trump has been accused or suspected of doing.
12/ Until now, Trump has been accused of crimes that require prosecutors to prove his state of mind (intent to fraud, "corrupt" intent) or are unprecedented or otherwise don't fit neatly into existing criminal statutes, despite what many Twitter lawyers would have you believe.
13/ But the Mar-a-Lago case is remarkably straightforward. Most people who bring classified documents to their home and keep them are in deep trouble. It's like having heroin in your purse or meth in your garage.
It is much more straightforward than January 6th.
It is much more straightforward than January 6th.
14/ Trump typically would have excuses most defendants would not have. He was the president, after all, and unlike most people it would be possible that classified docs were overlooked.
But DOJ bent over backwards to cut him a break, establishing a clear record of his intent.
But DOJ bent over backwards to cut him a break, establishing a clear record of his intent.
15/ Unlike the January 6th case, I suspect that Jack Smith could be ready to bring charges in the Mar-a-Lago case within weeks.
Will he do so soon, even with the January 6th investigation at an early stage? Quite possibly. /end
Will he do so soon, even with the January 6th investigation at an early stage? Quite possibly. /end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
