Trump Indicted!

Sommerswerd said:
I agree with you that Trump is unlikely to get substantially more votes than he got in 2020. My concern is that Biden will get substantially less than he did in 2020, for various reasons, including increased voter suppression along with increased apathy.
Click to expand...

Yes, and it is not like Trump needs to overcome the whole 7 million deficit. The margin of Bidens victory in the key states was less than 100000 votes combined. A 79-74 split for Biden might hand Trump the victory.
 
Voter suppression is a concern. Apathy, I think, is not. Trump arouses powerful emotions, but the antipathy he arouses is at least as strong as the devotion.

Biden turned out 11 million more votes than rock-star Obama did at his height (2008). You may say some of those 81 million were voting against how Trump handled the pandemic. But those people also shudder to consider how Trump would be handling Ukraine, and frankly even Israel-Hamas-- and that's even if they don't like Biden's handling of Israel-Hamas. Besides, in the general, Trump will have to boast about how he single-handedly overturned Roe v Wade, and that is an anti-Trump sentiment that will be particularly heightened in 2024.
 
Last edited:

Special counsel alleges Trump ‘sent’ supporters on path to Jan. 6 violence​

Jack Smith accused the former president of a history of election lies and ‘encouragement of violence.’​

By Spencer S. Hsu and Devlin Barrett
Updated December 5, 2023 at 1:56 p.m. EST

Federal prosecutors on Tuesday accused former president Donald Trump of a long pattern of lying about elections and encouraging violence, saying he “sent” supporters on Jan. 6, 2021 to criminally block the election results.

In a new court filing, prosecutors working for special counsel Jack Smith went further than in their August indictment in attempting to tie him to that day’s violence, saying they intended to introduce evidence of his other acts both before the November 2020 presidential election and subsequent alleged threats to establish his motive, intent and preparation for subverting its legitimate results.

“Evidence of the defendant’s post-conspiracy embrace of particularly violent and notorious rioters is admissible to establish the defendant’s motive and intent on January 6 — that he sent supporters, including groups like the Proud Boys, whom he knew were angry, and whom he now calls ‘patriots,’ to the Capitol to achieve the criminal objective of obstructing the congressional certification,” prosecutors alleged in a nine-page filing. They added, “At trial, the Government will introduce a number of public statements by the defendant in advance of the charged conspiracies, claiming that there would be fraud in the 2020 presidential election,” laying the “foundation for the defendant’s criminal efforts.”

Attorneys for Trump did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Trump has pleaded not guilty to all charges in what prosecutors say was a broad conspiracy to subvert the 2020 election by spewing a gusher of lies about purported election fraud and trying to get state local and federal officials to change the legitimate results to remain in power.

A four-count federal indictment in Washington, D.C., alleges he plotted to defraud the federal election process, obstruct Congress’s certification of the vote in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack, and deprive Americans of their civil right to have their votes counted. It is one of four criminal cases charged this year against the former president.

The others include a federal indictment in Florida over Trump’s alleged retention and mishandling of classified documents and obstruction after leaving the White House; a state trial in Georgia that involves similar allegations of trying to obstruct the state’s election results; and a New York state business fraud prosecution accusing Trump of covering up hush money payments made during his 2016 election campaign.

This is a developing story and will be updated.
 
I hope they can make this stick. What he did was wrong, in exactly this way, and he should be punished for it.
 
Eligible voters grew 146 to 168 million between those two elections.

Obama got 53% of popular vote, Biden 51%. That's one way to measure it. But into that, one factors the popularity of the opponent: Trump high, McCain, not so much.

Or, to come at another way, if the 22 million new eligible voters observed the general pattern of 66% voting, then we'd expect 16 million more voters voting, and Biden got 11 million of those. (That's provided I can do math . . . which . . . I can't, so anyone is free to correct my numbers). (But until someone does . . .) Biden did better than Obama.

(And in fact don't put any stock in this until I re-check "of voting age" vs "registered to vote." I think it's "registered to vote" in all cases. And it's going to be a while before I can get back to this.)
 
Last edited:

Special counsel goes directly to Supreme Court to resolve whether Trump has immunity from prosecution​

By Hannah Rabinowitz and Devan Cole, CNN


Special counsel Jack Smith on Monday asked the Supreme Court to decide whether Donald Trump has any immunity from criminal prosecution for alleged crimes he committed while in office – the first time that the high court will weigh in on the historic prosecution of the former president.

The extraordinary request is an attempt by Smith to keep the election subversion trial – currently scheduled for early March – on track. Smith is asking the Supreme Court to take the rare step of skipping a federal appeals court and quickly decide a fundamental issue of the case against Trump.

[IMG width="327px" height="183.769px" alt="Former President Donald Trump sits at the defense table while waiting for proceedings to begin in his civil business fraud trial at New York Supreme Court on Thursday, December 7, in New York."]https://media.cnn.com/api/v1/images/stellar/prod/ap23341552140544.jpg?c=16x9&q=h_144,w_256,c_fill[/IMG]

Smith’s team has asked the court to review district Judge’s Tanya Chutkan ruling that as a former president, Trump is not immune from the election subversion prosecution case brought in Washington DC. Lawyers for the former president have argued that Trump’s alleged actions over the 2020 election results were part of his official duties at the time and therefore he is protected by presidential immunity.

Prosecutors also asked the court to decide whether Trump is protected by double jeopardy. Defense lawyers have asserted that because Trump was acquitted by the Senate during his impeachment trial that he cannot be criminally tried for the same alleged actions.

If the Supreme Court were to take up the case, the issue of presidential immunity would skip being decided by an appeals court. Trump’s team had asked the appeals court last week to examine Chutkan’s ruling and also asked asked Chutkan to suspend all trial dates in the meantime. The question about presidential protections that Trump hopes to use as part of his defense need to be settled before Trump goes to trial, which is currently scheduled for March 2024.

“Respondent’s appeal of the ruling rejecting his immunity and related claims, however, suspends the trial of the charges against him, scheduled to begin on March 4, 2024,” Smith’s team wrote. “It is of imperative public importance that respondent’s claims of immunity be resolved by this Court and that respondent’s trial proceed as promptly as possible if his claim of immunity is rejected.”

The filing continues, “respondent’s claims are profoundly mistaken, as the district court held. But only this Court can definitively resolve them.”

Invokes US v. Nixon​

The special counsel’s team is pointing to a similar maneuver employed in US v. Nixon, the 1974 Supreme Court case in which the justices rejected then-President Richard Nixon’s claims of presidential privilege in a subpoena fight over Oval Office tapes. In that case, the high court moved quickly to resolve the matter so that one of the Watergate-era cases could proceed swiftly.

“Historically, the Supreme Court has rarely agreed to this kind of gambit – to take up an appeal before a federal court of appeals has had a chance to do so,” said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law.

“But not only has the Court shown far more willingness to expedite appeals since 2019, even before then, this was the exact kind of case in which it would have agreed to move quickly,” Vladeck added. In their appeal to the Supreme Court, prosecutors with the special counsel wrote that “nothing could be more vital to our democracy” than holding a former president accountable if they break the law. “A cornerstone of our constitutional order is that no person is above the law,” Smith’s team wrote. “The force of that principle is at its zenith where, as here, a grand jury has accused a former President of committing federal crimes to subvert the peaceful transfer of power to his lawfully elected successor.”

In urging the justices to take up the matter now, prosecutors argued that the nature of the high-profile case warranted a departure from normal appellate procedure. “If appellate review of the decision below were to proceed through the ordinary process in the court of appeals, the pace of review may not result in a final decision for many months; even if the decision arrives sooner, the timing of such a decision might prevent this Court from hearing and deciding the case this Term.”

This story has been updated with additional details.

 
Cool.

That is, provided the Court rules properly.

Ha ha. My second reflection is that, although Trump also wants this to go to the Supreme Court, watch him say "Oh, it should go through the normal series of appeals." Since what he wants far more than a ruling on this issue is delay.

Ha ha ha. And then my third thought is that the Court will do is work for him and say "No, no, it should go through the regular sequence of appeals."

Then my fourth thought is, to any reasonable people, Smith has a good claim to be heard. This issue can't be settled in a satisfactory manner at any level shy of the Supreme Court, so since they will eventually have to take it on, why not take it on?
 
Last edited:
uppi said:
Yes, and it is not like Trump needs to overcome the whole 7 million deficit. The margin of Bidens victory in the key states was less than 100000 votes combined. A 79-74 split for Biden might hand Trump the victory.
Click to expand...
I see you do numbers with the number pad.

I haven’t had a number pad in forever.
 
Gori the Grey said:
Cool.

That is, provided the Court rules properly.

Ha ha. My second reflection is that, although Trump also wants this to go to the Supreme Court, watch him say "Oh, it should go through the normal series of appeals." Since what he wants far more than a ruling on this issue is delay.

Ha ha ha. And then my third thought is that the Court will do is work for him and say "No, no, it should go through the regular sequence of appeals."

Then my fourth thought is, to any reasonable people, Smith has a good claim to be heard. This issue can't be settled in a satisfactory manner at any level shy of the Supreme Court, so since they will eventually have to take it on, why not take it on?
Click to expand...
Yes they have choices:

Rule and end the issue. If they do this, then I think they will rule against presidential immunity while not in office. I would hope they would rule no presidential immunity at all. That, though, might conflict with the DOJ rule of not indicting a sitting president. To put the president above the law is a dangerous proposition. I wonder if they would rule based on the judges ruling so far and not require any oral argument to themselves. Or, would they rush for oral arguments in January and a quick ruling soon after. Oral arguments soon and a June ruling is just pandering to Trump.

Push it back to the lower courts. This will signal favoring Trump's delay. It is a chicken poop decision.
 
Andrew Weissmann made a great point on MSNBC. Trump's rationale is at odds with any call for delay. By claiming presidents have immunity, he is in effect saying that every day of this legal proceeding is an offense against him; if it is true, then the courts are needlessly costing him time and money, and that should be ended as soon as possible. Weissmann said Trump doesn't care about such contradictions, of course, but it puts his lawyers on really poor footing when they go to argue the case.

The particular lawyer who filed the petition has argued hundreds of cases before the Supreme Court, evidently.
 
Birdjaguar said:
Jack Smith's guy?
Click to expand...
Yes. I'll listen harder for the name next time. Was new to me. And I watch a ton of the coverage.
Takhisis said:
Thats his entire life. Do you want him to suddenly grow up?
Click to expand...
No. Just a way of gauging the viability of his case. Here those contradictions will hurt hi . . . s lawyers.

"Every DAY of this case is a CRIME!
It's unfair to have cost me ONE DIME!
It's a SHAM; I'm IMUNE"
"Let's have SC rule soon."
"That's okay; you can take your sweet time."
 
Last edited:

Supreme Court will consider fast-tracking Trump appeal in D.C. trial​

‘The United States recognizes that this is an extraordinary request,’ special counsel Jack Smith wrote, calling it ‘an extraordinary case’​

By Devlin Barrett, Perry Stein, Robert Barnes and Rachel Weiner WaPo

The Supreme Court said Monday it will consider special counsel Jack Smith’s request to fast-track consideration of Donald Trump’s claim he is immune from prosecution for alleged election obstruction in 2020 — intensifying the legal jockeying over whether Trump’s criminal trial in D.C. will stay on schedule for early next year.

The decision by the nation’s highest court doesn’t mean that the justices will definitely short-circuit the typical appeals process, but it means they are going to hear arguments from both sides about whether they should act quickly. Trump’s lawyers were told to file briefs on the issue by Dec. 20. The quick response by the Supreme Court came hours after Smith’s office filed its request seeking to essentially leapfrog an appeals court process that Trump has already started but which could take months to resolve. A lengthy appeal could slow the Justice Department’s push for a March trial for Trump, the front-runner for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination.

It is unusual for the government to ask the court to disrupt the judicial process, and to do so quickly. “The United States recognizes that this is an extraordinary request,” Smith wrote. “This is an extraordinary case.” He added that without special intervention, the Supreme Court might not be able to consider the issue before the justices complete their term in June. The timing of Trump’s four criminal cases is of paramount concern to both prosecutors and the former president’s legal team. Smith has also charged Trump in Florida with allegedly mishandling classified documents and obstructing government efforts to retrieve them; in addition, Trump faces state charges in New York for alleged hush money paid during the 2016 election, and in Georgia alleging a massive conspiracy to undo the 2020 election results in that state.

In the face of the four indictments, Trump has denied guilt and tried to push his trials beyond Election Day in November. Smith’s latest legal gambit aims to keep the Washington trial on its current schedule. That schedule calls for Trump’s D.C. trial to begin one day before the Super Tuesday primary — underscoring how messy next year’s political and legal calendars could be.

“It is of imperative public importance that respondent’s claims of immunity be resolved by this Court and that respondent’s trial proceed as promptly as possible if his claim of immunity is rejected,” the filing from Smith argues. The Trump campaign in a statement accused Smith of trying to interfere with the 2024 election, saying he “is willing to try for a Hail Mary by racing to the Supreme Court and attempting to bypass the appellate process … There is absolutely no reason to rush this sham to trial except to injure President Trump and tens of millions of his supporters.” Trump’s legal team had earlier asked U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan to dismiss the charges against him, arguing that presidential immunity protects him from prosecution over his conduct during his waning days in office. Chutkan, who is overseeing the case, ruled against Trump, who plans to appeal that ruling.

That appeal, however, could take months and significantly delay the start of the trial. So Smith — the federal prosecutor appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland to lead the investigation of Trump — is seeking to speed up the process by taking the highly unusual step of going directly to the Supreme Court after his office prevailed in District Court. Smith argued in the filing that Trump’s legal claims of immunity “are profoundly mistaken, as the district court held. But only this Court can definitively resolve them.”
He noted that in recent years the court has granted requests to consider cases of “imperative public importance” before an appeals court had completed its review. Among them were challenges to President Biden’s attempt to forgive student loan debts; review of a Mississippi abortion law that led to overturning Roe v. Wade, and the proposed addition of a citizenship question to the census.

In arguing that the justices should take up the issue of Trump’s immunity right away, Smith cited the Supreme Court’s landmark United States v. Nixon decision, which ordered President Richard M. Nixon to deliver White House tapes and other documents to a federal district court. The unanimous ruling said a president does not have absolute immunity from subpoenas or other court actions.

The Supreme Court expedited consideration of the Nixon case, and delivered its opinion three weeks after oral argument. Derek Muller, a University of Notre Dame law school professor, described Monday’s filing as rare and said Smith was asking the Supreme Court for “extraordinary relief.” He said the Supreme Court is often reluctant to get involved when it doesn’t need to, but that there is no harm in Smith making the request as he explores every legal avenue to ensure the case proceeds on schedule.

“March 4th sounds like it is a long ways away — but it’s not. Especially when you have multiple layers of judicial review and pending appeals,” Muller said. “Smith’s team is trying to wrap up things as quickly as possible to eliminate uncertainty.” Trump picked one-third of the sitting Supreme Court justices during his four years in office. But the former president does not have a winning track record at the high court. The justices turned aside requests from Trump and his supporters to get involved in challenges to the 2020 election results. It ruled against his claims that the presidency protected him from investigation and rejected his efforts to block release of his financial records.

Last year, the court refused Trump’s request to block the release of some of his White House records to the House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol by a pro-Trump mob that was trying to heed his calls to overturn Joe Biden’s election victory. The justices also denied Trump’s effort to block a congressional committee from examining his tax returns after an extended legal battle.

In his petition to the court, Smith acknowledged the question of criminal liability for a president is one the justices have not confronted. But “a cornerstone of our constitutional order is that no person is above the law,” Smith wrote. “The force of that principle is at its zenith where, as here, a grand jury has accused a former President of committing federal crimes to subvert the peaceful transfer of power to his lawfully elected successor.” The government’s brief was signed by Smith and members of his special counsel team that now includes attorney Michael R. Dreeben, a former deputy solicitor general who has argued more than 100 cases at the Supreme Court. Dreeben also worked on the special counsel team of Robert S. Mueller III, which investigated Trump when he was president.

Smith told the justices that at the same time he was asking them to step in, he was requesting that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit expedite its review of Chutkan’s ruling. If the Supreme Court chooses not to bypass the appeals court, Smith said, “it may wish to note that the court of appeals should proceed with sufficient dispatch to permit the Court to hear this case promptly during its currently scheduled argument sessions for this Term.”

The Supreme Court’s last day of scheduled oral arguments is April 24. The appeals court also responded to Smith on Monday, giving Trump until Wednesday to weigh in on the special counsel’s request to fast-track the proceedings in that court. The three judges assigned to the case include two Biden appointees, Michelle Childs and Florence Pan, and one George H.W. Bush appointee, Karen Henderson.

It is rare, but not unheard of, that the Supreme Court intervenes in a case before an appeals court decides the issue. Generally, the justices feel they benefit from the briefing before lower court judges and those judges’ consideration of an issue.
Smith’s proposed briefing schedule in D.C. would give Trump 10 days to appeal Chutkan’s ruling that Trump is not immune from prosecution. Smith proposes that the government get a week to respond, and Trump three days to reply to that response.

Even if the court agrees to that schedule, the appeals court judges can take as long as they want to render a decision. When Trump claimed immunity from any civil lawsuit over his actions on and around Jan. 6, 2021, for example, oral argument was held in December 2022. But the decision — with the appeals court ruling against him — just came out this month.


 
Wow. That was speedy.

They've known this was coming their way.

Gori the Grey said:
Ha ha. My second reflection is that, although Trump also wants this to go to the Supreme Court, watch him say "Oh, it should go through the normal series of appeals." Since what he wants far more than a ruling on this issue is delay.
Click to expand...
Never has a prediction of mine been so right, so fast.

Trump's lawyers, cited in Bird's article:
There is absolutely no reason to rush this sham to trial except to injure President Trump and tens of millions of his supporters
Click to expand...
 
Maybe even oral arguments before Christmas!

"The decision by the nation’s highest court doesn’t mean that the justices will definitely short-circuit the typical appeals process, but it means they are going to hear arguments from both sides about whether they should act quickly. Trump’s lawyers were told to file briefs on the issue by Dec. 20."
 
Can't wait to listen to the audio tape of Trump's lawyers arguing "You should really send this matter down to a lower court."
 
I hope this is on Rachel's agenda tonight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
DeSantis Cuts and Runs, Backs Trump.
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
Hygro
Hygro
Estebonrober
Trump Assassination Attempt.
18 19 20
Replies
389
Views
13K
Gorbles
Gorbles
NinjaCow64
Republican Bidens and the Failure of the Democratic Party
21 22 23
Replies
450
Views
17K
Crezth
Crezth
stfoskey12
Strategic Party Affiliation
4 5 6
Replies
101
Views
5K
danjuno
danjuno
caketastydelish
Biden announces he is running for re-election 2024
10 11 12
Replies
225
Views
10K
Farm Boy
Farm Boy
Top Bottom