Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

His gun charge (he lied on a form when he purchased his gun by saying he had never used any illegal drugs) is still going to be prosecuted, but he will likely get a diversion/probation sentence and basically just have to not get arrested or possess a gun for the next 5 years or so.

Old Surly posted:

Jesus, what a mess. Is there a world where throwing all this spaghetti at the wall helps him? Like legally.

Caros posted:

I can't imagine a world where the state being able to play 'if I had them and they were still classified that would be illegal' would be helpful.

deoju posted:

This guy used to be a regular on Maddow and Olbermann during the Obama admin. When did he decide it was more lucrative to chud it up?

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

It's also a little strange that Jack Smith is running multiple investigations into him, but only just now offered to let him testify in his defense at a grand jury hearing. He didn't have any contact in the other investigations.

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

He didn't have any contact with the grand jury in that case.

quote:

The recent moves have signaled that Smith’s probe was nearing a likely charging decision, which now appears days, if not hours, away. The letter to Trump is yet another indication. The Justice Department manual provides that prosecutors may send a “target letter” to those who are likely to be charged in connection with a grand jury probe, giving them an opportunity to testify before an indictment comes down.

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

Right, that is a quote from the DOJ manual saying it can happen. Was there any reporting that he was invited? There might have been, but I don't remember.

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-11000-grand-jury posted:

9-11.153 - NOTIFICATION OF TARGETS
When a target is not called to testify pursuant to JM 9-11.150, and does not request to testify on his or her own motion (see JM 9-11.152), the prosecutor, in appropriate cases, is encouraged to notify such person a reasonable time before seeking an indictment in order to afford him or her an opportunity to testify before the grand jury, subject to the conditions set forth in JM 9-11.152. Notification would not be appropriate in routine clear cases or when such action might jeopardize the investigation or prosecution because of the likelihood of flight, destruction or fabrication of evidence, endangerment of other witnesses, undue delay or otherwise would be inconsistent with the ends of justice.

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

Right, which also explicitly says that it is not routine.

Hence the comments that this is not a routine thing. It essentially never happens at the state level and is not common at federal level outside of major situations like this one.

Tayter Swift posted:

I'm not sure Trump needs further self-incrimination beyond what he does as a normal course of his business. But his lawyers are really freakin good at stalling, and "inviting" him to appear before then GJ would I'd think give him yet another opportunity to delay things further as he fights and appeals it up the chain.

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

People evade their own security detail all the time.

Name Change posted:

Yeah he's going to try one cool trick that prosecutors hate by being president again. I think the odds of him winning are very low (the party has had nothing but massive electoral defeats since 2016), but the chances of the Republicans nominating a convicted criminal at the convention in July 2024 are very high.

neurobasalmedium posted:

Agreed, too late for the evening news. Looking like a Friday or Monday announcement.

PainterofCrap posted:

I am utterly convinced he sold state secrets, and that it will be part of of a superseding indictment.

PhantomOfTheCopier posted:

(But there's also a hearing scheduled for 8/10, by Superior Ct judge Schuster...)

Timmy Age 6 posted:

For the law-knowers: are the co-conspirators listed in the indictment necessarily also being charged, or is it just "hey we know what you did, assholes"?

Charlz Guybon posted:

Trump has lost all his Supreme court election cases by 7-2 or 8-1. Why would this be different?

Dr. Faustus posted:

The conspirators are not indicted in this case because if they were all included it would never make it to trial before the election. This indictment is strictly USA vs. Trump, not "Trump et. al.

Expect them to be charged separately but definitely expect them to be charged with something.

Also, woo motherfucking hoo.

mutata posted:

This page is a great example of why IMO it's silly to even bring up election polls (at all, but especially in this thread).

FizFashizzle posted:

Trump hosed over the state gop on two separate senate elections; favoring Loeffler over Collins, then pushing Walker on them.

They’re legit loving mad at him.

Zwabu posted:

I think doing enough procedural things to delay resolution of the case until after the election will be a win for her and him.

cr0y posted:

That means 10 people, since I had to have that clarified in the other thread.

Pylons posted:

The other two houses presumably. Worcester v. Georgia is pretty misunderstood in the popular idea of it, but if SCOTUS wanted to open up that can of worms by asking federal marshals to enforce their decision I'd think both the Legislative and the Executive would have plenty to say about it. lol that the next crisis over the powers of the supreme court could *also* center around Georgia though.

Tayter Swift posted:

I think this is the Federal trial, not Georgia. The note in the CourtListener docket just dropped but the PDF isn't on their site yet.

Paracaidas posted:

As Wheeler also notes (a bit more vehemently than I think is warranted), if Meadows wants to standby his guns that the 12/27 call was a part of his Chief of Staff duties then we seem to have an open and shut Hatch Act violation. The Hatch Act bit strikes me as more of a "ah, but by your logic" gotcha than anything for Meadows to stress over. There are a few other pieces that likely gently caress Meadows in Georgia too.

^{*obvious lie}

cochise posted:

If I were Lev I wouldn't say poo poo about poo poo on Twitter. The balls, or stupidity, of this guy.

Xiahou Dun posted:

In one of his filings in GA he talks about how he has immunity in the federal investigation.

Paracaidas posted:

I do think I side with Meadows on the principles given what he's charged with,

gregday posted:

Meadows is trying to have it both ways: claiming it should be removed to federal court because he was acting under the color of his job duties as CoS, but also that it was first amendment protected speech because it was campaign work, which undercuts the first claim.

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

To be unnecessarily fair, it seems like "was this part of his job duties or part of his campaign duties" seems like it's at least arguably a fact question for the jury, and if it's a fact question for the jury, then. . . yeah I guess removing it to federal court in an excess of caution seems to make some sense .I mean, we're talking about federal elections and federal offices. On the scale of "trump legal team arguments" this seems like one of the least stupid ones.

Paracaidas posted:

The only place I see "unquestionably political" in the Meadows' reply is quoting the state's filing, am I missing something?

quote:

All of the alleged conduct as to Mr. Meadows relates to protected political activity that lies in the heartland of First Amendment.

quote:

"For example, whatever one thinks of the merits of the tone and tenor of the discussion with the Georgia Secretary of State, the subject matter was undeniably about public issues of political importance. A candidate for public office does not cease to be a political candidate when the polls close on election day. Rather, the right to “vigorously and tirelessly” advocate for one’s own election continues beyond that time. See Democratic Party of Georgia, Inc. v. Crittenden, 347 F. Supp. 3d 1324, 1347 (N.D. Ga. 2018) (Jones, J.) (enjoining the State of Georgia from certifying election results until certain absentee ballots were counted). Nor is it unlawful to petition for redress pursuant to political or legal process when the results of an election remain undetermined.

quote:

All the substantive allegations in the Indictment concern unquestionably political activity and thus, if not covered by Supremacy Clause immunity, the charges would be barred by the First Amendment.

KillHour posted:

Don't have to hand it to him, yadda yadda, I know, but this is what's called a "belt and suspenders" argument and is so common in legal proceedings that not doing it would be incompetence on the part of his lawyer.

Yes, it's literally doing the narcissist's prayer thing of "here's an argument and if you don't buy that one, here's a different argument," but it's how the law works.