Happy Sunday! There’s only one day of rest before things heat back up, and quickly, in Trumpworld legal land. So I’ll try to keep this short to make the most of it.
Monday is a biggie
Monday already is stacked with key developments in at least three cases.
First, there is an evidentiary hearing on former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows’s removal request. Meadows is arguing that the Georgia state case should proceed in federal court because he was acting under color of federal law while performing his duties as chief of staff to the ex-president. He has also argued that the case should be removed because he has federal defenses he intends to assert, including a Supremacy Clause argument. Willis has responded (see my write-up on how she has laid a trap for him) and has also called the first two witnesses of the post-indictment era: Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and election investigator Frances Watson, both of whom were contacted by the White House and asked to intervene on behalf of candidate Trump.
Second, Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is presiding over the federal January 6 case in D.C., will hold her first calendaring conference with the lawyers for both sides and intends to set a trial date. As you may recall, Jack Smith has asked for an early date of January 2, 2024. Trump’s lawyers have asked for something quite different—April of 2026. I don’t think either will get the date they want, but I do think Chutkan will seek to set the trial well before the November 2024 election.
Third, there will be a hearing in the Contempt of Congress charge against Trump aide Peter Navarro, who was deeply involved in trying to keep Trump in power through the “Green Bay Sweep” plan. That plan wasn’t necessarily illegal, because it mostly involved legislative objections and maneuvering contemplated by the Electoral Count Act, but Navarro was worried enough about his own testimony that he refused to show up before the January 6 Committee at all. That’s how he’s landed with charges that could earn him a jail sentence.
Nazi sympathizer guns down three Black victims
A white, male gunman in tactical gear killed three Black shoppers in a Dollar General store in Jacksonville, Florida on Saturday. Authorities describe the shootings as “racially motivated.” The killer used an AR-15-style assault rifle and a Glock handgun covered in swastikas and, according to the Jacksonville Sheriff, “hated Black people.”
In a recent piece in The Big Picture, I wrote about how Trump is a stochastic terrorist, not only because he fits the definition of one precisely, but also because he has acted repeatedly to stoke dangerous and unstable elements in his base. His words, including his public support for groups like the Proud Boys and his praise of the “fine people” marching for white supremacy in Charlottesville, have emboldened and further radicalized others, some of whom quite predictably are stone cold killers who will terrorize and kill in his name or for his cause. Right wing violence against Jews, immigrants, ethnic minorities and the LGBTQ+ community is on the rise sharply, fueled in large measure by the words of their racist MAGA cult leader.
The horrific slayings are another clear example of why we must hold Trump legally accountable for his crimes and, should he still appear on the ballot, defeat him politically next year. It is not hyperbole to warn that a return of Trump to the White House could unleash racial violence and bloodshed on a level we haven’t seen since the Civil Rights era.
Speedy trial requests in Georgia
Two defendants so far—both former lawyers for the Trump Campaign—have moved for a speedy trial under Georgia law. Judge McAfee set the trial for Kenneth Chesebro to begin October 23, 2023, which is less than two months from now. It is likely that he will add Sidney Powell to that schedule—which is probably bad news for Chesebro. No one wants to be sitting at counsel’s table with someone as unhinged as Powell.
There are reports that Trump lawyer John Eastman may also prefer to go sooner rather than later, though with his case severed from the other defendants, leading experts to wonder what benefit these lawyers are all seeking. One theory that was floated by legal commentator Lisa Rubin was that these lawyers all want to get out ahead of an “advice of counsel” defense expected from Trump. In other words, if Trump intends to throw them under the bus by waiving attorney client privilege and pinning all his actions on their bad advice, it would better to not let him do so during the same trial.
But I looked a bit further into this intriguing argument, and it doesn’t make much sense given that Georgia law surprisingly appears not to permit “advice of counsel” as a defense. Georgia Code 15-19-17 appears to expressly disallow this defense:
Clients shall not be relieved from their liability for damages and penalties imposed by law on the ground that they acted under the advice of their counsel but are entitled to redress from their counsel for unskillful advice.
In other words, you can come back and sue your lawyer for bad advice, but you can’t hide behind that advice to escape culpability.
Each of these lawyers is expected to argue that they had a right to present all manner of legal options to Trump, even if some of them were off-the-wall or extraordinary. That’s actually their duty as zealous lawyers, they will argue. Whether this crossed over into them actively participating in a criminal conspiracy will turn on whether they understood their advice to be bogus and illegal, and that question will be very fact dependent. So far, the public record doesn’t look great for them.
Tomorrow is a big day, but we won’t likely have any developments until later in the morning or afternoon.
On a separate note, I want to encourage you to become a free subscriber, or even better a paid supporter, of the The Big Picture, where we our team takes on big issues from a broad perspective. It’s a terrific complement to the Status Kuo. Our problems today require both a 10,000 foot view and more detailed analysis, and you can obtain some of the former from my weekly contributor piece there.
You can sign up here: thinkbigpicture.substack.com/subscribe
As always, I am grateful for your support and encouragement in these difficult times for all of us. Have a fantastic Sunday, and I’ll see you back here tomorrow.
Jay
Well spotted, Jay, re: GA law excluding "advice of counsel" as a defense against criminal acts, negating one prospective pillar of the Orange Cancer's likely claims. Also, Eastman and The Cheese are already on record conceding the probable illegalities of several of their "advisory opinions" offered to tRump and his campaign, so that line of argument is already on shaky grounds. And Meadows may have the best of a bad hand to begin with in his motion to remove, but Judge Jones will need a lot of convincing, even given the low bar for removal, and as you wrote, Fani Willis is armed up and ready to offer compelling arguments to sink the "color of office" argument.
Not a lot to say about the MAL docs case in Fort Pierce, as *Judge* Cannon seems to be slow-walking a "Garcia" hearing, despite SC Smith's offering a roadmap for her to follow, basically to keep her out of trouble regarding the defendants' right of counsel and avoidance of conflict-of-interest representation. Her handling/mishandling of the pre-trial motions and hearings sooner or later will reach the 11th CA...how can it not?
According to a copy of the continuance order shown on the internet last week, Monday will also resume the disbarment proceeding in California for John Eastman, postponed from Thursday and Friday so he could be booked in Atlanta