Trump Indictments

Brazen Is All He’s Got Left At This Point

by WaterGirl| March 11, 202412:44 pm| 158 Comments

This post is in: Open Threads, Politics, Trump Indictments

Brazen is all Trump has left. Is he running on fumes ?

New defamation (or libel?) with E. Jean Carroll, and now he wants presidential immunity for events before and after he was president.

Why are these cases not dismissed up front for lack of standing?

He now wants presidential immunity for crimes he committed before he was President. https://t.co/y5KAf5HGBP

— Jack E. Smith ⚖️ (@7Veritas4) March 11, 2024

Apparently, the last format he libeled her in would have him back in court in NY with Judge Kaplan again.

Totally open thread.

Brazen Is All He’s Got Left At This PointPost + Comments (158)

Alina Habba: Fuck You, Oh Wait, Can You Help Us Out Here? (Open Thread)

by WaterGirl| March 7, 20249:56 am| 243 Comments

This post is in: Open Threads, Politics, Trump Indictments, Point and Mock

Trump’s attorneys have built up so much good will with the judges in the Trump cases, I can totally see why their first thought is to ask the judge to buy them some more time to get it together.

I hope I’m right about how this is going to turn out for them.

My first laugh of the day.

In a new letter tonight, Alina Habba is asking Judge Lew Kaplan — who has yet to rule on Trump’s request to stay enforcement of the $83.3 million E. Jean Carroll judgment as his post-trial motions are resolved — for some mercy. 1/

— Lisa Rubin (@lawofruby) March 6, 2024

What does this mean? Trump could be having difficulty arranging for a bond of $91-plus million, which is what will be required to cover the judgment and interest. 3/

— Lisa Rubin (@lawofruby) March 6, 2024

—and expecting that Kaplan will deny his request for a longer stay, he is trying to buy himself time to obtain one or free up sufficient cash. FIN.

— Lisa Rubin (@lawofruby) March 6, 2024

The Letter to Judge Kaplan

Something something flies honey vinegar.

Totally open thread.

Alina Habba: Fuck You, Oh Wait, Can You Help Us Out Here? (Open Thread)Post + Comments (243)

Law of Unintended Consequences

by WaterGirl| March 6, 20241:15 pm| 70 Comments

This post is in: Criminal Justice, Open Threads, Politics, Trump Indictments

So I’ve been thinking about this lately.

It has always been clear that Jack Smith chose his charges very carefully in both the D.C. case and the MAL documents case. What charges he brought. Who he indicted, and who he left as an un-indicted. For the time being, at least. He seemed to want the cleanest, slimmest cases possible, to insure conviction and increase the likelihood that the trials could happen in time.

So I can’t help but wonder what happens if it becomes crystal clear that one or both of these cases will not go to trial before November 2024. Will we see superseding indictments? After the recent Supreme Court ruling, I wouldn’t be surprised if we do.

In a similar vein, I also wonder what their contingency planning is at the DOJ. How many cases are there against insurrectionists in Congress, that are either being investigated, or perhaps are ready to be charged, sitting there under seal because they wanted to keep things as simple as possible – to ensure the big Trump trials could happen before November 2024.

If Trump were to win in November, then he could make sure that any cases that were still pending as of Jan 2025 would be dismissed. But a case that has already been filed and is in the hands of the courts would be a different situation, right? Cases already assigned to a judge would be totally out of the hands of what would surely be a corrupt DOJ if the worst would happen in November.

If there are cases like that, I am guessing that the DOJ would have to unseal them before the magic DOJ” 2 months ahead of an election’ rule. So early September would be my guess.

Even if it’s not exactly this, surely there is contingency planning going on at the DOJ to help preserve the rule of law if the worst were to happen in November. I would think so, at least but not having ever been part of government, I don’t really know.

Just to be perfectly clear, I am not suggesting that we will be defeated in November – I believe that we will win the presidency, the House and (likely) the Senate, but contingency planning is what you do when the outcome isn’t CERTAIN. So I really hope that folks in government are doing it.

Anyway, just sharing some thoughts that have been rolling around in my head. Pretty sure no one will hold back if you think otherwise.

Possible case in point.

NBC News Confirmed That The Probe Into Notorious Deleted Secret Service Text Message Scandal Is Officially A Criminal Investigation https://t.co/OcOTHL7SNI

— Karol Cummins (@karolcummins) March 5, 2024

Oh, and as a bonus – Mary Trump:

Today, millions of Americans voted to make Donald Trump the Republican nominee for president of the United States. I’m calling on them to reflect on the following:

You just voted for a man who:

1. Relentlessly attacks our institutions and has promised he will be a dictator on “day one”, determined to destroy our democracy for the sole purpose of enriching himself and staying out of prison.

2. Has been found liable for rape, and is accused of many other acts of sexual misconduct and assault.

3. Uses increasingly violent rhetoric to divide us and endanger anybody who doesn’t support him.

4. Traffics in anti-Semitism, misogyny, Islamophobia, and anti-immigrant hatred, in order to divide us.

If you’re a Republican who voted against my uncle, thank you.

But if you voted for him, perhaps it’s time to ask yourself whether you really care about America as much as you think you do.

See you in November.

Open thread.

Law of Unintended ConsequencesPost + Comments (70)

Fani Willis Closing Arguments

by WaterGirl| March 1, 20243:15 pm| 163 Comments

This post is in: Open Threads, Politics, Trump Indictments

Closing arguments this afternoon on the GA case where Trump & company try to get Fani Willis disqualified.

According to an article in the NYT , Team Trump and his odious attorneys argue that the appearance of impropriety is enough for Fani Willis to be disqualified in the GA case.

A judge in the Georgia election interference case against former President Donald J. Trump is hearing final arguments on Friday afternoon on a motion to disqualify the prosecutor who brought the case, Fani T. Willis, on the ground that a romantic relationship she had with a subordinate created a conflict of interest.

In their first line of attack on Friday, defense attorneys tried to set the bar low for disqualification, arguing that even the appearance of a conflict of interest could lead to the dismissal of Ms. Willis and her entire office from the case. The question could be pivotal to the outcome of whether the disqualification effort succeeds.

“We can demonstrate an appearance of a conflict of interest and that is sufficient,” John B. Merchant III, a lawyer for one of Mr. Trump’s co-defendants, Michael Roman, told the judge, Scott McAfee of Fulton County Superior Court.

Mr. Trump’s lawyer, Steven H. Sadow, picked up the theme in his own remarks, arguing that “once you have the appearance of impropriety,” the law in Georgia is clear: “That’s enough to disqualify.”

But according to Anthony Michael Kreis, that is not the case. (Law professor, political scientist, ATL enthusiast | Constitutional law, American Political Development, Supreme Court, civil rights, law of democracy 🏳️‍🌈)

NEW from me in the @ajc: Judge McAfee 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 have the power to disqualify @FaniforDA or the @FultonCountyDA from the 2020 election interference prosecutions under the Georgia Constitution without evidence of an actual conflict of interest. #gapol https://t.co/eb9MzZ8fCS

— Anthony Michael Kreis (@AnthonyMKreis) February 29, 2024

Anthony Michael Kreis

A few brief highlights of my argument. The standard for prosecutorial disqualification is an 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘵 not the 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 of a conflict or an appearance of impropriety. Judge McAfee on February 15th suggested that the standard could be either.

Judge McBurney indicated this could be the standard when he disqualified the Fulton County DA’s Office from investigating Burt Jones’ role in the 2020 election aftermath while the Special Purpose Grand Jury was empaneled. Here is Judge McBurney’s footnote. fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter…

The question of prosecutorial disqualification is a matter of Georgia law. The appellate courts have not always spoken with a clear unified voice on the question of what the standard is.

show full post on front page

Generally, they use an actual conflict. 𝘚𝘦𝘦 Ventura v. State, 346 Ga. App. 309 (2018), citing Whitworth v. State, 275 Ga. App. 790 (2005) (“such a conflict of interest requires more than a theoretical or speculative conflict. An actual conflict of interest must be involved.”).
Sometimes the appellate courts have thrown in “appearance of impropriety” language in the mix. Greater Ga. Amusements, LLC v. State, 728 S.E.2d 744, 747 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012) (“district attorney may not be compensated [in ways that have at least the appearance of a conflict…”).

The Georgia Constitution though and Georgia statutory history give us important context and guidance and should limit the standard Judge McAfee can use to the much higher bar: an actual conflict of interest. Under this standard, the motion to disqualify should be dismissed.

The Georgia Constitution establishes district attorneys as constitutional officers. The power to prosecute flows from the people of each judicial circuit through the district attorney’s office. And the Georgia Constitution imposes an unqualified duty on district attorneys:

DA’s must represent their constituents in 𝘢𝘭𝘭 criminal cases in superior court. Of course, there are limitations to that to the extent that defendants’ due process rights cannot be trumped by the Georgia Constitution’s otherwise unqualified mandate on the district attorney.
But the District Attorney is a constitutional officer; they can’t be disqualified without a demonstrable conflict that prejudices parties. I discuss in the op-ed the kinds of things are obvious conflicts of interest that would mandate disqualification by any reasonable measure.
The Supreme Court of Georgia in 2014 in 𝘔𝘤𝘓𝘢𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘭𝘪𝘯 𝘷. 𝘗𝘢𝘺𝘯𝘦 explained the DA has a very important place in our state constitutional structure. This is also why if a DA has a conflict of interest, the entire office is disqualified. They aren’t just any prosecutor.

“There is no law which authorizes any other person to act in his place in the superior court, except where he is ‘absent or indisposed, or disqualified from interest or relationship,’ and then the authority to act must come from the judge….” Butts v. State, 90 Ga. 450 (1892).
That is a case from the Supreme Court of Georgia explaining the relationship between district attorneys (then called solicitors general) and the standard for disqualification. There must be a ~conflict from interest or relationship.~

Where does this standard come from?

It was first codified in Georgia statutory law in 1860 and remains the language in O.C.G.A. § 15-18-5. Compare!

The long-and-the short of it (I explain in detail in the op-ed) is this standard is a codification of the common law standard for disqualification for judges that required an actual conflict of interest– a showing that a judge would profit or had a close connection with a party.

Today, judges are disqualified under an easier showing of bias because they are supposed to be impartial adjudicators. But prosecutors– and especially Georgia DAs– are different. The statutory standard for them is buried but it has not changed since it was codified in 1860.
Between the Georgia Constitution and the common law roots for disqualification in the OCGA, I argue that Judge McAfee cannot simply believe Fani Willis and the DA’s Office is dirtied up enough to undermine a perception of fairness, thus warranting disqualification.

ThreadReader link.

Fani Willis Closing ArgumentsPost + Comments (163)

The Supreme Court Has Shown Us Who They Are

by WaterGirl| February 29, 202410:30 am| 266 Comments

This post is in: Politics, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Corruption, Trump Indictments

The Supreme Court has shown us who they are.

Yeah, we knew before. But I would have thought that they would want to preserve at least a fig leaf to cover up their blatant corruption.

It would have been possible for them to have granted cert in this case – based on a principled stand – to make it clear once and for all that the President of the United States is not a king, so there could be no doubt. No one is king – not a serving U.S. President, not an outgoing U.S. President, not an incoming president.

They could have laid down a marker to say that the office of President of the United States is not a get out of jail free card for any or all crimes.

But to take up this case on the timeframe they set forth – where we don’t even know for sure if we will get a ruling before the end of this term in July – and where even a ruling by July could quite possibly delay the D.C. trial until after the election – this is in-your-face corruption, proudly on display, with a fuck you to the country (instead of a cherry) on top.

Well, I say fuck you back.

It’s up to us now, and I guess we have the currently serving SCOTUS to thank for the clarity.

Be sure to share your thoughts about SCOTUS helping Trump avoid justice to the Supreme Court. No threats though!! pic.twitter.com/1nJzVUBS0Q

— Rachel Bitecofer 🗽💡🔭🦆 (@RachelBitecofer) February 28, 2024

So, besides making our opinions known to the Supreme Court, what else are we gonna do about it?

Open thread.

The Supreme Court Has Shown Us Who They ArePost + Comments (266)

Supreme Court Grants Cert On Immunity Case

by WaterGirl| February 28, 20245:10 pm| 245 Comments

This post is in: Open Threads, Politics, Trump Indictments

Yikes. This was not what I expected would happen!

🚨 BREAKING: Supreme Court has *granted* cert and will consider presidential immunity.

Argument is set for week of April 22, an expedited timeline. pic.twitter.com/JiFQd7BBw1

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) February 28, 2024

I am not a lawyer, but it seems guaranteed that this will delay the D.C. case until end of summer, unless they did not grant a stay at the same time.

More details to come.

Update:

Fairly expedited schedule but I’ve seen faster. Trump has three weeks to file brief on merits. Case won’t be heard for almost two months. If they decide in a month or so, translates to trial, late August or early September approximately. Voting already will have started.

— Harry Litman (@harrylitman) February 28, 2024

👇👇👇 https://t.co/lDa6m9muh5

— Harry Litman (@harrylitman) February 28, 2024

Here’s the order.

They seem to not call it a stay, but it sure sounds like the equivalent of a stay, since the D.C. trial cannot resume until SCOTUS rules on this.

Update 2: there will definitely be cake, but of the drown your sorrows variety.

Supreme Court Grants Cert On Immunity CasePost + Comments (245)

Jack Smith Response in 30 Hours – What Took Him So Long? (Open Thread)

by WaterGirl| February 14, 20248:10 pm| 38 Comments

This post is in: Open Threads, Politics, Trump Indictments

I got my wish! Let’s hope the not-so-Supreme Court decides not to lollygag. I hope everyone understand that my “what took him so long?” was laudatory rather than critical.

The DOJ response to his SCOTUS appeal for a stay is in. 6 days early.

As expected, it’s fierce.

Highlights:

– “He can go pound sand” – SCOTUS should deny his request for a stay and let trial proceedings resume (rationale in the filing)

– “Remember December” – SCOTUS declined…

— Jack E. Smith ⚖️ (@7Veritas4) February 14, 2024

Jack Smith filing. (PDF)

Jack Smith has had about enough of citizen Trump’s bullshit.

Open thread.

Jack Smith Response in 30 Hours – What Took Him So Long? (Open Thread)Post + Comments (38)

I’d try pessimism, but it probably wouldn’t work.

Another missed opportunity for Jamie Dimon to just shut the fuck up.

The Giant Orange Man Baby is having a bad day.

The republican caucus is covering themselves with something, and it’s not glory.

Republicans are the party of chaos and catastrophe.

I didn’t have alien invasion on my 2023 BINGO card.

We are aware of all internet traditions.

We are builders in a constant struggle with destroyers. let’s win this.

Putin must be throwing ketchup at the walls.

It’s easy to sit in safety and prescribe what other people should be doing.

So it was an October Surprise A Day, like an Advent calendar but for crime.

In after Baud. Damn.

Fight them, without becoming them!

If you tweet it in all caps, that makes it true!

Someone should tell Republicans that violence is the last refuge of the incompetent, or possibly the first.

Take hopelessness and turn it into resilience.

Donald Trump, welcome to your everything, everywhere, all at once.

Boeing: repeatedly making the case for high speed rail.

Too often we hand the biggest microphones to the cynics and the critics who delight in declaring failure.

Impressively dumb. Congratulations.

Technically true, but collectively nonsense

Please don’t feed the bears.

Republicans don’t trust women.

Balloon Juice, where there is always someone who will say you’re doing it wrong.

Brazen Is All He’s Got Left At This Point

Alina Habba: Fuck You, Oh Wait, Can You Help Us Out Here? (Open Thread)

Law of Unintended Consequences

Fani Willis Closing Arguments

The Supreme Court Has Shown Us Who They Are

Supreme Court Grants Cert On Immunity Case

Jack Smith Response in 30 Hours – What Took Him So Long? (Open Thread)