A Legal Lightning Round

Defendants Mark Meadows and Donald Trump. Photos courtesy of CNN

I was trying to decide which of the many Trump legal stories to flesh out this morning, but they are coming in so rapid-fire that I figured I’d just fire back.

So welcome to something new, what I’m calling the “Legal Lighting Round.” We’ll play the round when there are a lot of legal developments but not a lot of time to delve too deeply into any one of them!

Ready? Here we go. 

Trump has entered a bond agreement in Georgia, and hoo boy

News headlines carried the wrong lede after Trump’s lawyers agreed to a $200K bond over his state charges in Georgia. Many focused on the dollar amount, which is a pittance for Donald Trump, without even mentioning the many conditions that make up his bond agreement. Those are much juicier.

As part of his release, Trump agreed, as is standard, not to violate any laws. The agreement then says Trump must not “intimidate any person known to him or her to be a codefendant or witness in this case or to otherwise obstruct the administration of justice.” Tellingly, it lists many things that would be considered a violation of this, but notes that the list is not limited to just these acts. They include no direct or indirect threat of any nature against any codefendant, witness, unindicted co-conspirator, victim, and the “community.” Then it adds that this includes posts on social media or reposts of posts.

I don’t know why Trump’s lawyers would have ever agreed to something this vague, given his insistence on being able to campaign and counter the attacks of his political opponents. Many of Trump’s threats are decidedly indirect, and I have no idea what “the community” refers to here. And is calling the judge or DA names considered “obstruction” under this agreement? Who is to say? It’s almost like his lawyer actually wants Trump to get in trouble.

Has Trump already violated the agreement?

Oddsmakers were taking bets on how long it would take for Trump to violate this agreement. Sure enough, right after the agreement was signed, Trump went on Truth Social and posted about the case.

Can you believe it? I’ll be going to Atlanta, Georgia, on Thursday to be ARRESTED by a Radical Left District Attorney, Fani Willis, who is overseeing one of the greatest Murder and Violent Crime DISASTERS in American History. In my case, the trip to Atlanta is not for “Murder,” but for making a PERFECT PHONE CALL! She campaigned, and is continuing to campaign, and raise money on this WITCH HUNT. This is in strict coordination with Crooked Joe Biden’s DOJ. It is all about ELECTION INTERFERENCE.

Trump is a social media troll, the kind that would wind up in Facebook jail a lot because he can’t help himself. But will his behavior land him in actual jail?

The Court could in theory find that this is an attempt to obstruct justice and impose sanctions, up to revoking his bail. The statement contains a false representation that the case is in “strict coordination” with the Department of Justice—which is untrue. Before Trump was an arraigned defendant, his First Amendment rights probably protected such free, if false, speech. But now that he has signed a bond agreement, he has voluntarily limited his freedom to speak, and he is out of bounds. It’s up to the judge to decide by how much.

My feeling is that the judge won’t act on this first transgression but will warn Trump at the arraignment that he could be sanctioned or even sent to county jail if he persists.

Jockeying for the Trial Date 

Up in Washington, Jack Smith asked for permission to file a “concise reply” to the defense brief, in which they had asked for 2.5 years—until April of 2026—before the trial would begin. Judge Tanya Chutkan immediately granted Smith’s request, and he promptly filed his reply.

In it, he methodically took down each of the defense’s arguments. He pointed out that they were using courtroom docket data from 2021 and 2022 to calculate the “median” time to trial—at a time when the coronavirus had backlogged many cases. They also had included misleading timeframes to calculate their median time to trial by adding in the time to sentencing. Smith then pointed out that much of what was turned over to defense counsel was already in the public domain, including social media posts, House committee interview transcripts and court records to legal challenges around January 6.

On the defense’s reference to the volume of discovery being akin to reading Tolstoy’s War and Peace 78 times daily, Smith responded that this was “neither helpful nor insightful” because no one reads evidence cover to cover. Instead, as I noted in my earlier write-up, lawyers review documents online using electronic keyword searches.

The hearing to set the trial date is on Monday, August 28. Smith has asked for a trial date of January 2, 2024. My own expectation is Judge Chutkan will set the trial for the spring or summer. But if Trump keeps messing with the jury pool with his social media posts and pissing her off, maybe she’ll move it up.

Meadows gets aggressive

I’m keeping a close eye on two filings by co-defendant and more-than-a-coffee-boy Mark Meadows down in Georgia. 

First, Meadows has filed a removal of the case to federal court. He argues that he is entitled by law to have the case heard in federal court because he was a federal official acting within the scope of his duties, e.g., by attending meetings with then-president Trump and carrying out and overseeing his daily calendar. The judge, the Hon. Steve Jones (an Obama appointee), didn’t immediately toss his motion, saying he needed to hear evidence. That hearing is also set for Monday, August 28th.

There is some superficial merit to Meadows’s argument—certainly more than Trump has—but it also faces some hurdles. For starters, if Trump wasn’t conducting official duties within the scope of his role as president, then Meadows can’t piggyback on those. Presidents have no role in federal elections. They’re written out of the process specifically because they are often candidates in the election. As president, Trump had no business personally “investigating” voter fraud. And if he did so, he was doing it as a candidate, not as president. Further, you can’t hide behind your “official duties” to perform illegal acts such as soliciting state officials to commit election fraud. Removal seems unlikely, viewed from this lens. Possible, but unlikely.

Even if Meadows prevails, don’t freak out. It means Fani Willis will try Meadows’s case in federal court instead of state court. And there’s still no pardon available because she’ll be charging the same state crimes. Federal rules of procedure might apply, but it’s state substantive law around RICO and the other crimes alleged that will be applied. The potential upside for Meadows is that the jury pool will be less blue because the selection will also pull from counties to the north of Atlanta which are more conservative, and the trial wouldn’t be televised. But, as Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post noted, Meadows still would have traded a green, Kemp-appointed state court judge for an experienced Obama-appointed federal one. Not a great trade, but thanks for playing.

(Wait, wait, so would Trump and the other defendants “follow” the case over to federal court were it removed? This would be the subject of much litigation and rather messy law—a topic too big for this legal lightning round. So I’m going to punt for now. We’ll get into it should the removal for Meadows somehow get granted.) 

Second, Meadows has moved for an outright dismissal of the case, arguing that the Supremacy Clause, the First Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment provide him with immunity from criminal charges as a matter of law. This is something of a Hail Mary, as the facts suggest that he was acting beyond the scope of his role and committing actual crimes. Still, a ruling against him will set up an appeal, either now or later, which he hopes will garner favor from the conservative Eleventh Circuit and Supreme Court. Too soon to tell how that will go.

I hope you enjoyed this four-part legal lightning round! And I hope that I won’t have to split my brain up this way and tackle different questions from different jurisdictions that often! But I have a feeling with four cases percolating, that may become increasingly necessary.