I’ve made a correction to the piece. I inadvertently said the “government” had moved for a delay, which is not correct of course. I mean “Trump’s lawyers.” Time for coffee!
My concern is growing for the safety of Fani Willis and other prosecutors, jurors and so on. I don't think we will see violence from protestors at a potential indictment in GA, however I do worry about targeted attacks against specific people as these cases ramp up. Terrorist groups like proud boys, et all have not disappeared one iota. They are simply laying in wait. It feels like this is the calm before the storm.
The Fulton County police, the state police, and federal marshals have been collaborating to ensure the safety of Willis, the grand jury, and potential witnesses.
LW, I appreciate your thoughtful comment. However, I have been tracking the federal and state agencies' assessments that violence from RW groups is the most significant terror threat to us. Their tracking has had this threat as high for the last three to four years.
Perhaps, the pro-Trump RW groups won’t show up in Atlanta for his arraignment TBD.
It feels like it is 100 degrees day and night in the south. Oh! But Georgia is not a long drive for his southern crackpot base. After it cools off, I expect them to make camp during his trial.
For those of us pro-democracy folks thinking of possible anti-protest action, don’t forget your leaf blowers because there will be tear gas.
Jay: it’s been a long time since my one semester of criminal law and two semesters of business law as part of a business degree, but my recollection is that his threats of physical violence are both a crime and a tort. Could there be civil action even if there is reluctance to hold him criminally accountable for his threats?
And while I hear you about keeping the legal focus, would his threats not have a chilling affect an those involved in his prosecution? I don’t expect Trump to sully his own hands in violence, but he has shown a predilection to stoke others to do his bidding. Perhaps the key players of the court have protection details, but say, I was a clerk or bailiff in the court, I think it reasonable for there to be genuine fear. And what of the overall court reputation if his threats continue?
Studies in martial arts remind me that sometimes when someone pushes, the best thing is to pull or parry -- and there is a moment for that. My observation also is that TFG knows no stopping without being pulled off balance and then being struck with a counter blow. The bully counts on others cowering.
That suit, with multiple parties joined, was filed a year-and-a-half ago, in DC, and to date I'm not sure if the presiding judge,
Amit Mehta, has yet allowed the suit to proceed...couldn't find any updates on it, as Judge Mehta averred that several constitutional questions remained unresolved, so it may never go to trial.
I stand corrected, as Judge Mehta has allowed 3 of the civil suits to proceed, including one by Capitol Police, and one by several Democratic Representatives...not sure where they are in a busy DC court calendar!
I'd skipped over the NYT article on Thomas's RV yesterday, but reading it this morning - achck! He really puts that thing in a Walmart parking lot? To be closer to "the people"? From the article: "...Justice Thomas attended a dinner at the conservative Goldwater Institute. In a speech that night, he said he had never yearned to be a federal judge. “Pure and simple, I wanted to be rich,” he said." Welp! He's "rich" now, in more ways than one. And a 🤬 federal judge.
I've long suspected that the Georgia indictment has been purposely timed to be the straw that breaks this camel's back. A State charge that cannot be pardoned by a Federal GOP win? Well played.
I fear we are out of time for such a big, sprawling case to be decided before the election. But I still hope enough Americans are unwilling to elect an indicted or convicted criminal to the White House. Perhaps I’m naive in thinking there are more of us than them on this.
"...the court should find him in violation of his pre-trial bail conditions and send him to detention pending trial." If only! He claims he is being treated differently and he sure is!!
He could make those threatening fake tweets from anywhere. Ban him from mentioning the case or anyone connected with it, by name or otherwise. He wouldn't be able to refrain, and the case for stiffer measures would be stronger.
He won’t stop using technology to whine and lie to his cult unless he is somehow physically restrained from doing so. It is his narcissistic supply. He is not capable of cutting himself off anymore than a heroin addict could stop using cold Turkey. For once could folks listen to the experts. Can you imagine if some deranged cult member assassinates Jack Smith?
Re: the Ohio ballot, Jessica Valenti, on her "Abortion, Every Day" Substack letter, has been wall-to-wall on coverage of next week's special election, and the utter distortion and disinformation accompanying the measure...big money and big lies to crush popular opinion in Ohio regarding pro-choice.
I am very happy the DC judge and Smith are moving swiftly to smack down Trump's "free speech" comments on Truth Social. They need to keep him on a short lease. I agree sending Trump to jail will just boost his popularity with his followers. Perhaps Smith and/or the judge should order a gag order and forbid him to talk about the indictment and proceedings. Isn't that what usually happens in court proceedings?
I had also expected large MAGA protests, even riots, at his arraignments, and am surprised that there are so few protesters. I'm interested in the reason why. Less fervent support? Lessons from the sentences resulting from Jan. 6? What do you think?
In a recent episode of the Bill Kristol Conversations podcast, Ryan Goodman, NYU Law Professor and former special counsel to the Defense Department (and no fan of Trump) posited that if Trump is elected, he, Goodman, could see the Supreme Court ruling that a sitting President cannot be subject to indictment, trial or sentencing of state criminal proceedings. I have always thought that Trump would attempt to derail the federal cases, by pardoning himself or simply ordering the DOJ to shut down the cases, but I thought that the state cases were safe. Thoughts?
I suppose it’s possible that a SCOTUS could so rule. I’d have to see what authorities he cites for this, though. I don’t think there is much love between SCOTUS and the president though
But that ruling is one made by the OLC in a memo written in 1973 round the Watergate era, and never tested in federal court, at any level. I mean, if tRump manages to be tried, convicted, AND sentenced by a state court BEFORE he's sworn into office, he has appellate options at the state level, no? SCOTUS can't vacate a state trial decision of a private citizen without the process completed at the state level, surely.
The Supreme Court can eventually hear an appeal of a state court conviction/ruling if federal/constitutional issues are implicated (here, possibly federalism, comity, separation of powers). But I do not know -- and leave it to constitutional lawyers, which I certainly am not (I am a former federal prosecutor) -- the process of how such a ruling would reach the Supreme Court and whether Trump would first need to take his appeal up to, say, the Supreme Court of Georgia before the federal courts would get involved.
While not a criminal case, Bush v Gore had worked its way up to FL Supreme Court before SCOTUS stepped in and handed the election to Shrub, and it's likely that an appeal of a criminal conviction in a state court would go the same route, pending a grant of certiorari following an unsuccessful Circuit Court ruling.
I had the same thought -- what would be the basis for such a ruling. Goodman was not asked for, and did not cite, any authorities or any constitutional principles. I assume that the Court would apply the same reasoning set forth by the DOJ in its manual that a federal prosecution of a sitting President would incapacitate the Presidency and that the only recourse to removing a President set forth in the Constitution is impeachment (or the 25th Amendment).
“...ruling that a sitting President cannot be subject to indictment, trial or sentencing of state criminal proceedings”
I get that there should be some shielding in place to avoid a President being constantly distracted by having to fend off a steady stream of politically motivated civil cases.
But saying a President can’t be indicted for CRIMINAL acts while in office *IS* putting them above the law. And the more powerful a person is the more we should make sure that is never the case.
If a sitting president commits a crime, the remedy is impeachment and removal. And then prosecution. The theory being that no member of Congress would stand for a criminal to stay in the Oval Office. Ha!
I get why that is in the Constitution: you don't want it to be possible for a president to be removed from office for political reasons by making up allegations and pushing those through courts filled with the president's political opponents.
But this is different, because the investigation of Trump's alleged criminal actions started four years before the election, and moved as quickly as such a complicated case can move. I think that even if he's elected, the state cases against him should be allowed to proceed, especially the ones that started in investigations before he declared to run again. Neither running, or even winning, should exempt a person from the law.
Impeachment is the option available to Congress. The fact that process exists shouldn't mean a President is exempt from other legal proceedings. The Constitution says Impeachment is what Congress can do. It doesn't say nobody else is allowed to do anything. The fact that the State police can arrest me if I commit a crime shouldn't mean the police in my local town are prohibited from doing so.
The argument that things could be pushed through the courts be a President's political opponents and therefore Impeachment is the only remedy is not a good one. As we've seen, Impeachment is a far, far more political process that something that would have to work it's way through several levels of courts with juries that have been screened and mutually agreed to by prosecution and defense.
Should it come to pass that we are confronted with a Trumpy redux, we say no, thank you, we're not consenting to that madness....- meaning all of it, they entirety of a proposed Trump presidency.
Also the trapped scoundrels are pivoting and darting and ducking and weaving in lame attempts to simply melt into the crowd, whistling- take Eastman, for example, claiming they intended to do a coup all along....like watching the faces of the demon change at warp speed before he imploded into a gazillion flies....
"Prosecutors promptly used the above threat to support their protective order motion, which the government sought to delay by three days. Judge Chutkan denied that extension request rather summarily, signaling she is not interested in putting anything off."
I think you meant to write that "...which tRump sought to delay..." rather than "...which the government...". Judge Chutkan is totally no nonsense, as one can image the "other" judge in the docs case on a similar motion allowing tRump's team all the time they needed to reply to the government.
tRump is now going off on Judge Chutkan, "tweeting" - or whatever it's called - that she is incapable of conducting a fair trial, she *recuse* herself, and *demanding* a change of venue...man, he's REALLY pushing the envelope here.
H/T to Jeff Tiedrich's newsletter for reproducing his screed.
But there is method in his madness, no? Each SM post ratchets up the insults and tacit threats, to the point of denigrating the judicial system in its entirety, in full self-confidence that he won't be held in contempt and his bail revoked. Will he be set right on that score? If not, his taunting and insults will even get worse...what a dilemma for Judge Chutkan and SC Smith.
And when do his insults of SC Smith fall into libelous conduct..."deranged", "crackhead", "a sick man"...and on and on. I admire Smith for his forbearance, but honestly, there does come a point...
I’ve made a correction to the piece. I inadvertently said the “government” had moved for a delay, which is not correct of course. I mean “Trump’s lawyers.” Time for coffee!
I'm drinking my coffee and understood what you meant. 🤗
Thanks for the correction. I was trying to figure out what other government was involved in this!
Pile on the charges! He's a loser.
My concern is growing for the safety of Fani Willis and other prosecutors, jurors and so on. I don't think we will see violence from protestors at a potential indictment in GA, however I do worry about targeted attacks against specific people as these cases ramp up. Terrorist groups like proud boys, et all have not disappeared one iota. They are simply laying in wait. It feels like this is the calm before the storm.
The Fulton County police, the state police, and federal marshals have been collaborating to ensure the safety of Willis, the grand jury, and potential witnesses.
LW, I appreciate your thoughtful comment. However, I have been tracking the federal and state agencies' assessments that violence from RW groups is the most significant terror threat to us. Their tracking has had this threat as high for the last three to four years.
Perhaps, the pro-Trump RW groups won’t show up in Atlanta for his arraignment TBD.
It feels like it is 100 degrees day and night in the south. Oh! But Georgia is not a long drive for his southern crackpot base. After it cools off, I expect them to make camp during his trial.
For those of us pro-democracy folks thinking of possible anti-protest action, don’t forget your leaf blowers because there will be tear gas.
Jay: it’s been a long time since my one semester of criminal law and two semesters of business law as part of a business degree, but my recollection is that his threats of physical violence are both a crime and a tort. Could there be civil action even if there is reluctance to hold him criminally accountable for his threats?
And while I hear you about keeping the legal focus, would his threats not have a chilling affect an those involved in his prosecution? I don’t expect Trump to sully his own hands in violence, but he has shown a predilection to stoke others to do his bidding. Perhaps the key players of the court have protection details, but say, I was a clerk or bailiff in the court, I think it reasonable for there to be genuine fear. And what of the overall court reputation if his threats continue?
Studies in martial arts remind me that sometimes when someone pushes, the best thing is to pull or parry -- and there is a moment for that. My observation also is that TFG knows no stopping without being pulled off balance and then being struck with a counter blow. The bully counts on others cowering.
There are in fact civil cases pending against Trump for violating civil rights of the Congressmembers by inciting the insurrection.
I had not heard of those (or missed them). Perhaps in the endless din of the outrageous, those actions did not make it through.
That suit, with multiple parties joined, was filed a year-and-a-half ago, in DC, and to date I'm not sure if the presiding judge,
Amit Mehta, has yet allowed the suit to proceed...couldn't find any updates on it, as Judge Mehta averred that several constitutional questions remained unresolved, so it may never go to trial.
I stand corrected, as Judge Mehta has allowed 3 of the civil suits to proceed, including one by Capitol Police, and one by several Democratic Representatives...not sure where they are in a busy DC court calendar!
Also, Jay, could this be one reason the Foreperson's name is missing from the latest federal Grand Jury indictment for the attempted coup?
I'd skipped over the NYT article on Thomas's RV yesterday, but reading it this morning - achck! He really puts that thing in a Walmart parking lot? To be closer to "the people"? From the article: "...Justice Thomas attended a dinner at the conservative Goldwater Institute. In a speech that night, he said he had never yearned to be a federal judge. “Pure and simple, I wanted to be rich,” he said." Welp! He's "rich" now, in more ways than one. And a 🤬 federal judge.
Monetizing SCOTUS.
No shame, no ethics, and no awareness of proprieties.
Wow!
🤮
I've long suspected that the Georgia indictment has been purposely timed to be the straw that breaks this camel's back. A State charge that cannot be pardoned by a Federal GOP win? Well played.
And yet, I would sleep better if it resolved before the election, even without the ability to pardon.
I fear we are out of time for such a big, sprawling case to be decided before the election. But I still hope enough Americans are unwilling to elect an indicted or convicted criminal to the White House. Perhaps I’m naive in thinking there are more of us than them on this.
"...the court should find him in violation of his pre-trial bail conditions and send him to detention pending trial." If only! He claims he is being treated differently and he sure is!!
Of course there is an alternative. Home detention at Mal a Loco or Bedminster, complete with ankle bracelet.
True. That could be an option.
He could make those threatening fake tweets from anywhere. Ban him from mentioning the case or anyone connected with it, by name or otherwise. He wouldn't be able to refrain, and the case for stiffer measures would be stronger.
Still, at least it’s a viable disincentive
How does that stop him from using technology to threaten witnesses?
Home detention could include no internet, no phone and/or other stipulations. If he doesn't like that, he can reserve a room at the gray bar hotel.
He won’t stop using technology to whine and lie to his cult unless he is somehow physically restrained from doing so. It is his narcissistic supply. He is not capable of cutting himself off anymore than a heroin addict could stop using cold Turkey. For once could folks listen to the experts. Can you imagine if some deranged cult member assassinates Jack Smith?
I prefer “mar slago”, but yours is appropriate as well!
My go-to is Mar-a-Lardo.
Re: the Ohio ballot, Jessica Valenti, on her "Abortion, Every Day" Substack letter, has been wall-to-wall on coverage of next week's special election, and the utter distortion and disinformation accompanying the measure...big money and big lies to crush popular opinion in Ohio regarding pro-choice.
Yes. I just completed my draft on the piece. It’s really quite scary.
I am very happy the DC judge and Smith are moving swiftly to smack down Trump's "free speech" comments on Truth Social. They need to keep him on a short lease. I agree sending Trump to jail will just boost his popularity with his followers. Perhaps Smith and/or the judge should order a gag order and forbid him to talk about the indictment and proceedings. Isn't that what usually happens in court proceedings?
I had also expected large MAGA protests, even riots, at his arraignments, and am surprised that there are so few protesters. I'm interested in the reason why. Less fervent support? Lessons from the sentences resulting from Jan. 6? What do you think?
In a recent episode of the Bill Kristol Conversations podcast, Ryan Goodman, NYU Law Professor and former special counsel to the Defense Department (and no fan of Trump) posited that if Trump is elected, he, Goodman, could see the Supreme Court ruling that a sitting President cannot be subject to indictment, trial or sentencing of state criminal proceedings. I have always thought that Trump would attempt to derail the federal cases, by pardoning himself or simply ordering the DOJ to shut down the cases, but I thought that the state cases were safe. Thoughts?
I suppose it’s possible that a SCOTUS could so rule. I’d have to see what authorities he cites for this, though. I don’t think there is much love between SCOTUS and the president though
But that ruling is one made by the OLC in a memo written in 1973 round the Watergate era, and never tested in federal court, at any level. I mean, if tRump manages to be tried, convicted, AND sentenced by a state court BEFORE he's sworn into office, he has appellate options at the state level, no? SCOTUS can't vacate a state trial decision of a private citizen without the process completed at the state level, surely.
The Supreme Court can eventually hear an appeal of a state court conviction/ruling if federal/constitutional issues are implicated (here, possibly federalism, comity, separation of powers). But I do not know -- and leave it to constitutional lawyers, which I certainly am not (I am a former federal prosecutor) -- the process of how such a ruling would reach the Supreme Court and whether Trump would first need to take his appeal up to, say, the Supreme Court of Georgia before the federal courts would get involved.
While not a criminal case, Bush v Gore had worked its way up to FL Supreme Court before SCOTUS stepped in and handed the election to Shrub, and it's likely that an appeal of a criminal conviction in a state court would go the same route, pending a grant of certiorari following an unsuccessful Circuit Court ruling.
I had the same thought -- what would be the basis for such a ruling. Goodman was not asked for, and did not cite, any authorities or any constitutional principles. I assume that the Court would apply the same reasoning set forth by the DOJ in its manual that a federal prosecution of a sitting President would incapacitate the Presidency and that the only recourse to removing a President set forth in the Constitution is impeachment (or the 25th Amendment).
And there again, if one or both houses of Congress are in Repub hands, no way will a *president* tRump either be impeached or convicted.
True 🙁
Really? I thought 6 of them were among his fans.
“...ruling that a sitting President cannot be subject to indictment, trial or sentencing of state criminal proceedings”
I get that there should be some shielding in place to avoid a President being constantly distracted by having to fend off a steady stream of politically motivated civil cases.
But saying a President can’t be indicted for CRIMINAL acts while in office *IS* putting them above the law. And the more powerful a person is the more we should make sure that is never the case.
If a sitting president commits a crime, the remedy is impeachment and removal. And then prosecution. The theory being that no member of Congress would stand for a criminal to stay in the Oval Office. Ha!
I get why that is in the Constitution: you don't want it to be possible for a president to be removed from office for political reasons by making up allegations and pushing those through courts filled with the president's political opponents.
But this is different, because the investigation of Trump's alleged criminal actions started four years before the election, and moved as quickly as such a complicated case can move. I think that even if he's elected, the state cases against him should be allowed to proceed, especially the ones that started in investigations before he declared to run again. Neither running, or even winning, should exempt a person from the law.
Impeachment is the option available to Congress. The fact that process exists shouldn't mean a President is exempt from other legal proceedings. The Constitution says Impeachment is what Congress can do. It doesn't say nobody else is allowed to do anything. The fact that the State police can arrest me if I commit a crime shouldn't mean the police in my local town are prohibited from doing so.
The argument that things could be pushed through the courts be a President's political opponents and therefore Impeachment is the only remedy is not a good one. As we've seen, Impeachment is a far, far more political process that something that would have to work it's way through several levels of courts with juries that have been screened and mutually agreed to by prosecution and defense.
Should it come to pass that we are confronted with a Trumpy redux, we say no, thank you, we're not consenting to that madness....- meaning all of it, they entirety of a proposed Trump presidency.
Also the trapped scoundrels are pivoting and darting and ducking and weaving in lame attempts to simply melt into the crowd, whistling- take Eastman, for example, claiming they intended to do a coup all along....like watching the faces of the demon change at warp speed before he imploded into a gazillion flies....
"Prosecutors promptly used the above threat to support their protective order motion, which the government sought to delay by three days. Judge Chutkan denied that extension request rather summarily, signaling she is not interested in putting anything off."
I think you meant to write that "...which tRump sought to delay..." rather than "...which the government...". Judge Chutkan is totally no nonsense, as one can image the "other" judge in the docs case on a similar motion allowing tRump's team all the time they needed to reply to the government.
Yes, I’ve corrected this, thank you.
When? Is it? Going to be? Over?
tRump is now going off on Judge Chutkan, "tweeting" - or whatever it's called - that she is incapable of conducting a fair trial, she *recuse* herself, and *demanding* a change of venue...man, he's REALLY pushing the envelope here.
H/T to Jeff Tiedrich's newsletter for reproducing his screed.
This might work with his base, but it’s not going to help win him either a change of venue or any favors from the judge when it moves forward in D.C.
But there is method in his madness, no? Each SM post ratchets up the insults and tacit threats, to the point of denigrating the judicial system in its entirety, in full self-confidence that he won't be held in contempt and his bail revoked. Will he be set right on that score? If not, his taunting and insults will even get worse...what a dilemma for Judge Chutkan and SC Smith.
And when do his insults of SC Smith fall into libelous conduct..."deranged", "crackhead", "a sick man"...and on and on. I admire Smith for his forbearance, but honestly, there does come a point...
It seems the wheels of justice and karma move slowly. I'm so very weary of everything trump related. I apologize for being so whiny this morning.