The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

[Blackhawk]

How many felonies is he going to rack up?

All of them.

[Carpet_pissr]

I guess this goes here:

The GOP front-runner also claimed that Black Americans have “embraced” his mug shot more than anyone else.

“The mug shot, we’ve all seen the mug shot, and you know who embraced it more than anybody else? The Black population. It’s incredible. You see Black people walking around with my mug shot, you know they do shirts,” he said.

[Jaymann]

[Grifman]

Trump's lawyers plan to use court schedule conflicts to delay his trials until after the election:

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/26/politics ... index.html

[Kurth]

Trump's lawyers plan to use court schedule conflicts to delay his trials until after the election:

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/26/politics ... index.html

Trump’s plan to use Judge Cannon to block Judge Chutkan and avoid trial

CNN— Former President Donald Trump’s lawyers see a major opportunity this week to use his criminal document mishandling case in Florida to create an impasse on his calendar for the two federal judges overseeing his major criminal cases.

Juggling his campaign and court calendar and playing his cases off one another is a key part of Trump’s legal strategy. The ultimate goal, his team has said openly, is to prevent Trump from being tried in federal court before voters cast their ballots in the 2024 general election.

A primary aim for Trump’s legal team, according to people familiar with the strategy, is to put the judge in DC overseeing the 2020 federal election obstruction case, Tanya Chutkan, in a position where she can’t start a trial before Election Day.

“Meaning, ice her,” said a person familiar with Trump’s trial schedule strategy. “Making it impossible for her to jam a trial down before the election, by things that are out of her control.”

Chutkan set an initial trial date for March 4, which has been delayed indefinitely because of appeals. Yet if the Supreme Court returns the case to Chutkan, that trial could be back on the calendar within a month or two.

One way to hamper Chutkan is to convince the judge in Florida, Aileen Cannon, to move Trump’s Mar-a-Lago document mishandling trial from late May until the summer.

Isn't there a fundamental flaw in this plan? If the election interference case in D.C. is ready to go (if, big if, SCOTUS doesn't derail it), why would Jack Smith let the document handling case in FL get in the way? Just drop that case altogether and move forward with the trial that is (1) more important; and (2) in a much friendlier venue.

[Alefroth]

Isn't there a fundamental flaw in this plan? If the election interference case in D.C. is ready to go (if, big if, SCOTUS doesn't derail it), why would Jack Smith let the document handling case in FL get in the way? Just drop that case altogether and move forward with the trial that is (1) more important; and (2) in a much friendlier venue.

It's up to Chutkan at this point, and I don't think she'll be that easily manipulated. Chutkan could set the date whenever she wants and it would be up to Cannon to adjust.

[Alefroth]

As bad as SCOTUS has become, I really didn't expect this-

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/28/trump-e ... unity.html

The high court granted Trump’s request to pause the case from moving forward until they decide whether an ex-president is immune from being prosecuted for official acts performed while in office, as Trump claims.

The justices are poised to proceed quickly, with Trump’s court briefs due within three weeks and oral arguments set for the week of April 22. But it could take months for the court to issue an opinion.

[Skinypupy]

They didn’t buy all those Justices for nothing.

[Alefroth]

I guess they still haven't ruled on the motion for a stay, but I can't imagine them denying that while they hear the case.

[Kurth]

As bad as SCOTUS has become, I really didn't expect this-

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/28/trump-e ... unity.html

The high court granted Trump’s request to pause the case from moving forward until they decide whether an ex-president is immune from being prosecuted for official acts performed while in office, as Trump claims.

The justices are poised to proceed quickly, with Trump’s court briefs due within three weeks and oral arguments set for the week of April 22. But it could take months for the court to issue an opinion.

This isn’t surprising, and I don’t find it particularly troubling. They ordered all briefing done on an accelerated schedule to hear argument on 4/22, and we’ll have a decision on this - and the Trump CO ballot case - by June.

Of course, I would have rather the court realize how singularly important and unique this case is and speed things up even more than normal, but that was never going to happen.

[Alefroth]

That's pushing it way too close for me. Once we have a ruling, it'll be another couple of months before the trial resumes. I guess the good news is that the case shouldn't have to comply with the DOJs doctrine of not announcing anything within a certain amount of time before an election.

[waitingtoconnect]

The thing that kicks me right in the happy sacks every time about all this is that trump is arguing for MORE powers than the English king had in 1776. Under Uk law at the time the Kings powers were not absolute.

How does the Supreme Court need to rule on this. It’s like ruling on a claim the sun goes around the earth.

In December 1689 the UK Parliament passed what became known as the Bill of Rights. It set out to redesign how the English monarchy should work in future.

Never again would it be possible for a monarch to govern independently without parliamentary consent, as both James II and Charles II had done. both the Bill of Rights and the Claim of Right contributed a great deal to the establishment of the concept of parliamentary sovereignty and the curtailment of the powers of the monarch.

[LawBeefaroni]

As bad as SCOTUS has become, I really didn't expect this-

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/28/trump-e ... unity.html

The high court granted Trump’s request to pause the case from moving forward until they decide whether an ex-president is immune from being prosecuted for official acts performed while in office, as Trump claims.

The justices are poised to proceed quickly, with Trump’s court briefs due within three weeks and oral arguments set for the week of April 22. But it could take months for the court to issue an opinion.

This isn’t surprising, and I don’t find it particularly troubling. They ordered all briefing done on an accelerated schedule to hear argument on 4/22, and we’ll have a decision on this - and the Trump CO ballot case - by June.

Of course, I would have rather the court realize how singularly important and unique this case is and speed things up even more than normal, but that was never going to happen.

None will of the cases be resolved until after the election. If Trump wins, his AG kills all federal investigations and prosecution. I'd he loses, well be more concerned about Jan 6 II.

[Unagi]

None of the cases be resolved until after the election. If Trump wins, his AG kills all federal investigations and prosecution. I'd he loses, well be more concerned about Jan 6 II.

I really hope you are wrong.

[Holman]

I'm slightly not worried about January 6 II. Here's why:

1) I don't think Trump has gained *more* fervent support since 2020. Polls suggest he has lost some.

2) Many of the kind of people willing to storm the capitol already tried it, and many of them are now in jail.

3) There's little reason to expect that it will work a second time, especially since the unthinkable first time is now thinkable. Surprise has been lost, and this time there's no Trump in the White House preventing a swift response.

4) For this performance, the role of Mike Pence will be played by Kamala Harris.

5) I *do* expect to see scattered acts of violence and even stochastic terrorism, but expectation will lead to preparation for it.

[ImLawBoy]

As bad as SCOTUS has become, I really didn't expect this-

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/28/trump-e ... unity.html

The high court granted Trump’s request to pause the case from moving forward until they decide whether an ex-president is immune from being prosecuted for official acts performed while in office, as Trump claims.

The justices are poised to proceed quickly, with Trump’s court briefs due within three weeks and oral arguments set for the week of April 22. But it could take months for the court to issue an opinion.

This isn’t surprising, and I don’t find it particularly troubling. They ordered all briefing done on an accelerated schedule to hear argument on 4/22, and we’ll have a decision on this - and the Trump CO ballot case - by June.

Of course, I would have rather the court realize how singularly important and unique this case is and speed things up even more than normal, but that was never going to happen.

I find it somewhat troubling because I think Trump's arguments are particularly specious and denying cert would have given them the hearing they deserved. The case is only important because of the stakes - it's not important because it poses a question that should be taken seriously. I think the odds are very low that the ruling is outright overturned, but I could also see it going back down on some procedural grounds. (Caveat: I'm talking out my ass and don't know whether there are any procedural issues that could theoretically justify sending it back down.)

[Punisher]

Heres a thought...
Trump wins in the SC and we determine that a sitting president does have full immunity.
Biden then has Seal Team 6 kidnap Trump and move him to a deep blacksite.
Nothing can be done about it because the president has immunity.

[El Guapo]

I'm slightly not worried about January 6 II. Here's why:

1) I don't think Trump has gained *more* fervent support since 2020. Polls suggest he has lost some.

2) Many of the kind of people willing to storm the capitol already tried it, and many of them are now in jail.

3) There's little reason to expect that it will work a second time, especially since the unthinkable first time is now thinkable. Surprise has been lost, and this time there's no Trump in the White House preventing a swift response.

4) For this performance, the role of Mike Pence will be played by Kamala Harris.

5) I *do* expect to see scattered acts of violence and even stochastic terrorism, but expectation will lead to preparation for it.

Yeah, I can't really think of a way that a straight "January 6th part II" would work in 2024 when the GOP doesn't have the vice presidency. The more worrying possibilities are: (1) a state legislature controlled by the GOP (WI, NC, etc.) votes to overturn the results of a state apparently won by Biden; and (2) the GOP wins the U.S. house and senate in 2024 and votes to overturn pro-Biden results.

[stessier]

Now that would lead to riots.

[hepcat]

Heres a thought...
Trump wins in the SC and we determine that a sitting president does have full immunity.
Biden then has Seal Team 6 kidnap Trump and move him to a deep blacksite.
Nothing can be done about it because the president has immunity.

The winners in this scenario are the American people and Melania.

[LawBeefaroni]

I'm slightly not worried about January 6 II. Here's why:

1) I don't think Trump has gained *more* fervent support since 2020. Polls suggest he has lost some.

2) Many of the kind of people willing to storm the capitol already tried it, and many of them are now in jail.

3) There's little reason to expect that it will work a second time, especially since the unthinkable first time is now thinkable. Surprise has been lost, and this time there's no Trump in the White House preventing a swift response.

4) For this performance, the role of Mike Pence will be played by Kamala Harris.

5) I *do* expect to see scattered acts of violence and even stochastic terrorism, but expectation will lead to preparation for it.

Not an exact copy, of course, since he won't be an incumbent. And maybe not on Jan 6. But imagine that he doesn't win the election, disputes the results, and is facing the real prospect of convictions. He'll call on the faithful to show their displeasure and they will oblige. Be that storming state capitols, pressuring/threatening elected officials, pickup truck convoys, who knows. He will be desperate and MAGA nation will be too.

I don't go too deep into the derpy right fringe but I sometimes cross their path. There is a fair amount of "never again" related to the fact they they were let down by soft segments of the GOP/right. I truly hope it's all talk and bluster but if Trump sees it as a way out, he'll take it.

[LawBeefaroni]

Heres a thought...
Trump wins in the SC and we determine that a sitting president does have full immunity.
Biden then has Seal Team 6 kidnap Trump and move him to a deep blacksite.
Nothing can be done about it because the president has immunity.

The president may be immune in that scenario but the Navy wouldn't be. Kidnapping a US citizen on US soil?

[Holman]

Heres a thought...
Trump wins in the SC and we determine that a sitting president does have full immunity.
Biden then has Seal Team 6 kidnap Trump and move him to a deep blacksite.
Nothing can be done about it because the president has immunity.

The president may be immune in that scenario but the Navy wouldn't be. Kidnapping a US citizen on US soil?

Pardons all around!

[Brian]

pickup truck convoys

...and a "rogue" A10 going BRRRRRT!

Not that anybody is suggesting it but that was the image that flashed in my mind.

"Presidential Immuniteeeee"

[Kurth]

As bad as SCOTUS has become, I really didn't expect this-

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/28/trump-e ... unity.html

The high court granted Trump’s request to pause the case from moving forward until they decide whether an ex-president is immune from being prosecuted for official acts performed while in office, as Trump claims.

The justices are poised to proceed quickly, with Trump’s court briefs due within three weeks and oral arguments set for the week of April 22. But it could take months for the court to issue an opinion.

This isn’t surprising, and I don’t find it particularly troubling. They ordered all briefing done on an accelerated schedule to hear argument on 4/22, and we’ll have a decision on this - and the Trump CO ballot case - by June.

Of course, I would have rather the court realize how singularly important and unique this case is and speed things up even more than normal, but that was never going to happen.

I find it somewhat troubling because I think Trump's arguments are particularly specious and denying cert would have given them the hearing they deserved. The case is only important because of the stakes - it's not important because it poses a question that should be taken seriously. I think the odds are very low that the ruling is outright overturned, but I could also see it going back down on some procedural grounds. (Caveat: I'm talking out my ass and don't know whether there are any procedural issues that could theoretically justify sending it back down.)

I hear you, and I agree that this is a specious argument and one the SC did not need to grant cert to hear. But the fact is, this Supreme Court was always going to grant cert on this, and I do think there’s a countervailing argument that because this is Trump and because this is a national issue of such import, it makes sense to have the highest court in the land issue a decision on it.

Also, I’d point out that they are hearing this on an accelerated schedule. If, assuming they shoot down Trump’s stupid immunity claim (which I believe they will), and that means that this case isn’t tried until after the election, I don’t see how we can really lay that at the feet of the judicial branch. The DOJ literally took forever and a day to get this case set for trial. According to this timeline:

- November - January 2020: Trump interferes with the election and the peaceful transition of power.
- November 18, 2022: Garland appoints Jack Smith as special counsel to investigate Trump’s election interference and classified doc mishandling.
- November 2022 - June 2023: Smith issues a raft of subpoenas and engages in numerous discovery fights to compel compliance with subpoenas.
- June 8, 2023: Trump is indicted on classified doc mishandling claims in Federal court in FL.
- June - July 2023: Smith gathers more evidence in election interference case.
- July 16, 2023: Smith sends Trump a letter informing him he is a target in the election interference case.
- July - August 2023: Smith gathers more evidence in election interference case.
- August 1, 2023: Trump is indicted on election interference claims in Federal court in D.C.

So, we’re looking at criminal acts that took place in November of 2020, and we’re seeing an indictment about 34 months later. It’s a little rich now for us to be outraged at the judicial system for not delivering justice on a quicker timeline.

If you want to argue that it took a while to gather all the evidence needed to support the indictment against Trump on the election interference charges and that it was important to make sure that every T was crossed and every I dotted given the importance of the case, I can see that. But we can’t have our cake and eat it too when insisting that the judiciary needs to change its normal practices even more than it already has to make sure this trial happens before Trump is elected again.

I also think it’s worth noting that most of Trump’s conduct took place in plain view for all to see. We all have the receipts. We know what he did. Why did it take 2 years to appoint Smith as Special Counsel and another 10 months to get an indictment on the interference charges?

In the end, I think it’s a pipe dream that the judiciary is going to save us from Trump. He’s not going to be kept off the ballot. He’s going to be the GOP candidate, and he’s going to receive close to 50% of the popular vote. If we’re to avoid the nightmare of another Trump administration, we cannot count on the courts to bail us out, and, frankly, it’s not their job in a functioning democracy.

Sad that I’m not sure we actually qualify as a functioning democracy at this point, but the point remains. It’s not the court’s job to save us from ourselves.

[Isgrimnur]

pickup truck convoys

...and a "rogue" A10 going BRRRRRT!

Not that anybody is suggesting it but that was the image that flashed in my mind.

"Presidential Immuniteeeee"

It's been revoked!

[El Guapo]

I also think it’s worth noting that most of Trump’s conduct took place in plain view for all to see. We all have the receipts. We know what he did. Why did it take 2 years to appoint Smith as Special Counsel and another 10 months to get an indictment on the interference charges?

One thing I'll say is that 10 months from Smith's appointment to an indictment *is* fast, especially for an important high profile case where it's essential for all the details to be right, and where (presumably) the key parties are not cooperative. And I wouldn't totally agree with the statement that the key conduct "took place in plain view for all to see." That's true in the sense that all of us could see January 6th. But there's no case against Trump without intent, and intent relies on either contemporaneous communications or testimony from cooperating witnesses.

The harder part to justify is the roughly 1.5 years from Garland's confirmation to Smith's appointment. It's hard to avoid the conclusion that part of that is that Garland (and to a degree the Biden administration) in 2021 was hoping to "turn the page" and avoid fights like this.

That said, while I agree that SCOTUS / the judiciary isn't being crazy taking the case or setting the schedule that they did, they should factor in the importance of the timing here, especially where the key party is clearly trying to use delay for its own sake. Like I don't think setting the hearing for April rather than March is reasonably justifiable.

[Kurth]

I also think it’s worth noting that most of Trump’s conduct took place in plain view for all to see. We all have the receipts. We know what he did. Why did it take 2 years to appoint Smith as Special Counsel and another 10 months to get an indictment on the interference charges?

That said, while I agree that SCOTUS / the judiciary isn't being crazy taking the case or setting the schedule that they did, they should factor in the importance of the timing here, especially where the key party is clearly trying to use delay for its own sake. Like I don't think setting the hearing for April rather than March is reasonably justifiable.

They could have moved faster, especially in deciding whether to grant cert or not, but this schedule isn't really any slower than the 10 months it took for Smith to get to an indictment. From the minute they grant cert, they need to set a briefing schedule and a date for oral argument. They schedule is:

- 3/19: Trump's opening brief and amicus briefs in support
- 4/8: The government's opposition brief
- 4/15: Trump's reply
- 4/22: Argument

That's 3 weeks for Trump's opening brief, 3 weeks for the governments opposition, 1 week for Trump's reply, and 1 week for the Court to review the briefs and prepare for argument. Could they have cut a couple weeks off of that schedule? Sure. But why are we in a situation where a matter of weeks is so freaking momentous?

Also worth noting that Trump didn't even want the Court to decide to hear this appeal at this point. He simply asked SCOTUS to stay the case while he wasted more time with a futile rehearing request to the D.C. circuit. It was the Special Counsel's office that requested that SCOTUS treat Trump's stay request as a request for cert and just get the thing moving.

I've seen some commentary that the Supreme Court should have taken this appeal directly from Chutkin when Smith asked them to previously, side-stepping the D.C. Court of Appeals. That would have been great, but that would have also been extraordinary. There's been a tension all along here between (1) the idea that Trump is not above the law and that he should be treated like anyone else and (2) that we should expect the courts to do extraordinary things when it comes to Trump's case. I am much more aligned with (1) than I am with (2). I don't want that idiot in FL, Judge Cannon, doing extraordinary things that advantage Trump, and I also don't want extraordinary things done that disadvantage him. That's not how the law is supposed to work.

If Trump is not tried before the election - and he likely won't be - it seems to me that the blame for that rests squarely with DOJ. Smith has done an admirable job to accelerate things, but he got a really, really late start.

[Zarathud]

The fault is partly with Trump’s lawyers who have given him unreasonable hope and ridiculous positions. Michael Cohen was the warning to ethical attorneys that Trump is looking to win or blame, not to comply with the law.

[waitingtoconnect]

They moved faster on student loans, evictions, and other cases that benefited the maga agenda.

On student loans they granted a request to skip the appellate court.

The Supreme Court has become the third chamber of congress. It’s not a court anymore.

[Punisher]

Heres a thought...
Trump wins in the SC and we determine that a sitting president does have full immunity.
Biden then has Seal Team 6 kidnap Trump and move him to a deep blacksite.
Nothing can be done about it because the president has immunity.

The president may be immune in that scenario but the Navy wouldn't be. Kidnapping a US citizen on US soil?

Pardons all around!

Queue Oprah/Biden special...
You get a pardon and you get a pardon! Heck our whole audiance gets pardons!!!

[waitingtoconnect]

Because judge cannon decided he should be named a witness in the classified documents case has been forced out to tell his story before he’s accused of being a crisis actor or a puppet of George Soros/the lizard people/Hunter Biden/Zelensky etc.


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... r-BB1jIqAv

[LawBeefaroni]

Donald Trump's Georgia judge dismisses some criminal charges

Judge Scott McAfee found six counts in the 41-count indictment against Mr Trump and some of his co-defendants, including Rudy Giuliani, lacked detail.

But he said the charges can still be refiled at a later date.

A delay is as good as a permanent dismissal.

[Unagi]

Donald Trump's Georgia judge dismisses some criminal charges

Judge Scott McAfee found six counts in the 41-count indictment against Mr Trump and some of his co-defendants, including Rudy Giuliani, lacked detail.

But he said the charges can still be refiled at a later date.

A delay is as good as a permanent dismissal.

But it could bode well for the Dismissal case against Willis, I've read...

[El Guapo]

Donald Trump's Georgia judge dismisses some criminal charges

Judge Scott McAfee found six counts in the 41-count indictment against Mr Trump and some of his co-defendants, including Rudy Giuliani, lacked detail.

But he said the charges can still be refiled at a later date.

A delay is as good as a permanent dismissal.

Is this a delay, though? Aren't the other charges going forward as scheduled?

[Alefroth]

Yes, and Willis can re-indict him on the dismissed ones if she just provides more detail.

[LawBeefaroni]

The other charges are are still on but I'm saying that these 6 are as good as dead. Delay = after election = dead.


Also, is this sloppy work? I'm not up on thr details but doesn't seem like a good sign when a judge dismisses charges like this.

[Isgrimnur]

Judge denies one of Trump's motions to dismiss classified documents case

The judge presiding over the federal criminal case involving former President Donald Trump's handling of classified documents on Thursday denied one of his two motions to dismiss the case, saying the motion was premature.

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon found that Trump's argument that the main statute prosecutors are using against him is unconstitutionally vague as it applies to presidents is better-suited to be addressed at a later time "in connection with jury-instruction briefing and/or other appropriate motions."

[Unagi]

Stormy is going to need to issue a new Premature Membership card.

But, I'm sure she's just helping him ease it in.

[Alefroth]

Willis can continue if Wade goes.

https://www.vox.com/politics/2024/3/15/ ... dge-mcafee