Experts: Jack Smith’s “dramatic new proof” so “overwhelming” reluctant witnesses may decide to flip
Experts: Jack Smith’s “dramatic new proof” so “overwhelming” reluctant witnesses may decide to flip
Trump “demonstrated a criminal intent" to collaborate with insurrectionists at “expense of the Constitution," law professor says.
Shit or get off the pot.
151If you're trying to keep track of where we're at in the Trump prosecutions:
Updated 01/08/2024
Washington, D.C.
4 federal felonies
January 6th Election InterferenceInvestigation
Indictment
Arrest <- You Are Here
Trial - March 4th, 2024, one day before Super Tuesday primaries.
Jack Smith had requested that the Supreme Court immediately rule on Trump's immunity defense, the Court rejected the request, requiring it to go through the usual appeals process first.
Conviction
SentencingNew York
34 state felonies
Stormy Daniels PayoffInvestigation
Indictment
Arrest <- You Are Here
Trial - March 25th, 2024
Conviction
SentencingFlorida
40 federal felonies
Top Secret Documents chargesInvestigation
Indictment
Original indictment was for 37 felonies.
3 new felonies were added on July 27, 2023.
Arrest <- You Are Here
Trial - May 20, 2024
Conviction
SentencingGeorgia
13 state felonies
Election InterferenceInvestigation
Indictment
Arrest <- You Are Here
All 19 defendants have surrendered.
Trial - A trial date of Aug. 5, 2024 has been requested, not approved yet.
Three defendants, Kenneth Chesebro, Sidney Powell, and bail bondsman Scott Hall, have all pled guilty and have agreed to testify in other cases.
The judge in the case has set a deadline of December 1st for all motions to be filed, expect a trial date at some point after that.
Conviction
SentencingOther grand juries, such as for the documents at Bedminster, or the Arizona fake electors, have not been announced.
The E. Jean Carroll trial for sexual assault and defamation where Trump was found liable and ordered to pay $5 million before immediately defaming her again resulting in a demand for $10 million is not listed as it's a civil case and not a crimimal one. That trial date is currently set for January 15th, the same day as the Iowa caucus. and has now been determined to be for damages only as Trump was already found liable.
As a function of the January 6th and Georgia trials, there are now lawsuits in two states to bar Trump from the primary ballot based on the insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment.
Colorado:
12/19/23 - The Colorado Supreme Court has ruled that Trump is not eligible for the primary ballot due to being barred by the 14th Amendment as an insurrectionist.
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments starting Thursday, February 8th.
Minnesota:
11/8/2023 - State Supreme Court denies challenge, allows ballot access.
Maine:
12/29/2023 - Maine's Secretary of State has ruled that Trump is not qualified for the ballot., which is now being challenged.
A long-shot write in candidate for President has also filed suits seeking to bar Trump from the ballot in Florida, Kansas, Montana, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Utah, Wisconsin and Wyoming.
His cases in Arizona, California, Idaho, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and West Virginia have been thrown out:
https://www.wmur.com/article/new-hampshire-donald-trump-ballot-lawsuit-dismiss/45682757
103That’s not how the legal system works. If you come at the king you best not miss and jack has no interest in missing.
I’d rather have an air tight case given how slippery Trump has been. You clearly understand how difficult this is yet here you are advocating for a rush job.
Let him cook.
99It's been three fucking years. I strenuously object to the notion that building even an airtight case for crimes we all witnessed live on national fucking TV really needed to take this goddamn long!
For perspective, by this amount of time had passed after the Beer Hall Putsch, Hitler had been arrested, tried, convicted, imprisoned, wrote a shitty book, and pardoned and released again. If even the Weimar fucking Republic -- damn near a failed state -- could manage that, what do these ridiculous delays say about us?!
47In principle I agree. But the truth is the GOP has gone fully rogue. They aren't even playing the same game, let alone by the same rules. The more latitude Trump and those in thrall to him are afforded, the more likely an actual, effective, coup is executed. The deeper into the process Trump gets, the more legitimaized he becomes. The more legitimaized he becomes the more the "implications" increase. Basically he needs to be removed from the game as soon as possible because time is a huge factor. He's very good at stall tactics, and he is very good at making sure things do or do not stay in the public consciousness. In short, the most dangerous thing you can give Trump to play with is time.
43I'm with you on the legal side, but on the media side, wtf. I'm tired of having to check whether each piece of new, devastating evidence is in fact a) new and not some new wrapper around an article from yesterday b) actually devastating, not routine filing and c) relevant at all.
That's no dig at this particular article, but these headlines are inducing a "shit or get off the pot" mentality as far as trying to keep up.
Edit: I would like to note that this headline engages in speculation (note the word "may"). That is some "shit or get off the pot" shit. I'm tired of what "may" happen. At least in the headline. Speculation has its place. It's in the body of a well-sourced article.
9If the legal system cannot hold Trump accountable before hes able to get elected president and make these investigations stop then the legal system doesn't work. A system that cannot protect itself from the people it's supposed to punish is fundamentally broken, and that's looking like where we are. Cling to the broken system and you should expect broken results.
7Wait, are we cooking or are we shitting? Because those are very different pots...
3
Isn't the trial date already set? This is just an article about some random "expert opinion," not something actually from the case.
13I'm so tired of these that I'm nimb to it. I've resigned myself to a bleak Donald Trump filled future.
5Dont
2
I'll believe it when I see it.
101nobody asked, doomer
-63I asked. Stfu.
19Any fucking day now......
7
Is this the relevant part?
Former Trump aide Nick Luna also shared that when the ex-president was told about Vice President Mike Pence’s need to be moved to a secure location, Trump responded by saying "So what?" Luna perceived this as an “unexpected willingness” on Trump's part to expose a longtime loyalist to potential harm.
“Indeed, Trump’s angry response to Scavino’s comment to him that there’s smoke coming out of the Capitol in effect was, ‘Let it Burn,’” Gershman said. “And his nonchalant indifference to Vice President Pence’s safety and welfare offers chilling proof that Trump’s conscious purpose, namely, his intent, was first to incite an insurrection and then by his inaction to demonstrate his intent that the insurrection effectively stop Congress from doing its constitutional duty to certify the election results.”
This proof would be “powerful circumstantial” evidence of Trump’s criminal intent underlying all the federal charges, he added.
58I find it crazy how Trump trying to foege election results with fake certificates and get those flown into DC somehow didn't affect any of these things at all.
Like wtf.
38
There have been rumors that Jack Smith has something up his sleeve since he presented an argument about Trump's claim of immunity. In it, he listed "hypothetical" crimes that could be committed where immunity couldn't apply. Which is odd. Accepting a bribe, ordering an FBI director to fake evidence against a political foe, ordering the military to murder critics, and even selling nuclear secrets to a foreign enemy—these are the particular and peculiar crimes that prosecutors say Trump could get away with if he succeeds in arguing that presidential immunity.
53Ordering the FBI to go after political opponents and fake evidence? That sounds really far fetched I don't know if...
The rogue department: how the Trump DoJ trashed legal and political norms
Former senior DoJ officials say the former president aggressively prodded his attorneys general to go after his enemies, protect his friends and his interests, and these moves succeeded with alarming results until Trump’s last few months in office.
Trump says he would weaponise DOJ and FBI against political enemies
Oh okay yeah that sounds pretty plausible
66
This salon article is basically a re-posting of this article linked:
Basically the tldr is it's testimony that was recently disclosed publicly for the first time in a new motion from someone around him as the insurrection was unfolding. Lots of details about his mindset and what he was doing at the time, but one particularly interesting one was apparently trump decided to make the tweet about "Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done" minutes after hearing he was in danger, some more solid evidence he was trying to get his coup followers to attack Pence and others. Interesting details about what went down that will no doubt be helpful in court, but the headline is a bit sensationalized I think.
26This is reminding me of Muller and how it was all talk that amounted to nothing
23"Amounted to nothing"? Did you read the report? There was plenty of evidence that Mueller put forward that should have amounted to a case. The only remaining questions were if Trump was even aware he was being assisted and actively colluding, and if a sitting president could be prosecuted. Mueller decided he had to be impeached and removed before action could be taken, and his cult protected him.
That's not "all talk", that's Republicans putting their own interests over the country.
66Muller's report was like... Yo, this guy did some things that definitely could be considered crimes. As an investigator, I referred them to the DoJ, as bringing a case against the president was not part of my mandate.
That then Bill Barr was like... Eh, he's white and rich and he's forwarding a christofacist agenda, so I don't think we need to charge him with anything.
34There was plenty of evidence that Mueller put forward that should have amounted to a case.
"Should have" is all we ever deal in.
20And Garland decided not to use it when he had the chance at the beginning of the Biden administration.
12
People went to jail because of Mueller's good work. Is that what your mean by "nothing"?
You may have wanted Trump to go to jail or be forced out of office but there was no chance of either of those given that Trump was President.
34Yeah, that guy.
That head guy at the FBI that said Trump was fine after reviewing the report ... that guy is now in prison for being a Russian asset.
21
It was profitable, 34 people and 3 companies were indicted, and it substantiated election interference.
32Permanently Deleted
1The factual findings in that document say otherwise, but "OK, Doomer."
-9
I have no faith in justice. I do have faith in strokes and heart attacks.
9Quick, someone order him some a few dozen more hamberders
3I feel like Trump would have his blood scrubbed nightly to prevent just that kind of thing.
1
I mean, if they properly constructed full presidential immunity on anything what's to stop B from having T executed?
8I keep seeing hypotheticals like this as if the Dems won't pull the same old "we go high" BS they've been pulling my entire life. They're all about positioning themselves as "the good guys" while letting Rs do just whatever. The realistic way it would play out is Dems pretend nothing is wrong, make a show of "peaceful transfer of power" after the election, and do the shocked pikachu when it's bad. Do pay attention to modern history.
3
Let me refute the central claim of the article, e.g., that the evidence is so strong that co-conspirators might wish to take a plea and coopoerate.
Right now, Trump is leading the race for the GOP nomination. It is likely that he'll be the nominee. If Trump is the nominee, it's currently a coin toss on whether or not he gets elected. If he's elected, all federal criminal cases against him will evaporate the second he takes office, because Garland is out, and the arms-length doctrine about the president's relationship with the Justice Dept. is too. Jack Smith is going to be fired, and the person that comes in is going to file a motion to dismiss. IF Trump is elected, that's a given. Anyone that's flipped on Trump at this point is going to be hung out to dry.
People that are part of the RICO case in Georgia run similar risks, e.g., if they flip on Trump and he wins the presidency, they're probably going to end up getting screwed for pissing off Trump, since he's a dumb, vindictive sonuvabitch.
Even if Trump loses the election, Jack Smith still has to present a strong enough case to convict. While that seems likely to me, what evidence a jury can hear and consider isn't the same as what I get from news sources. There's a lot that I've seen that simply isn't going to be admissible, and that could be enough for a jury to find Trump et al. not guilty on most or all charges.
If I was a defendant in this case, I'd say that there was roughly a 50-50 chance of getting pardoned outright if I kept my mouth shut, and a 25% chance that Smith wouldn't be able to prove his case. That works out to be a roughly 38% that if I kept my mouth shut, I'd end up in convicted and possibly in prison. Those aren't great odds when you're talking about a few years in federal prison. But weighed against 30% of the whole country viewing you as a traitor if you take the deal, and having a target on your back for the rest of your life? I might take that risk.
8