DC - Former President Donald Trump indicted, 4 federal counts in 2020 election interference, 1 Aug 2023, Trial 4 Mar 2024

[SouthAussie]

I looked back a little in the thread, but I don't think this has been mentioned yet.

The Grand Jury reconvened last Thursday (7th Sep).


The grand jury that handed up the indictment against former President Donald Trump stemming from efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election is meeting Thursday at the federal courthouse in Washington, DC, after an over four-week hiatus.

Smith said after the charges were announced that the investigation would continue, and the latest grand jury meeting is an indication it’s ongoing.

Grand jury investigating 2020 election interference meets after four-week break

*********************************************

The D.C. grand jury investigating Donald Trump’s bid to flip the 2020 election result will reportedly meet again this week

.. asked former acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal if he thought more indictments were likely.

Katyal, who is now a legal analyst on the network, was unequivocal in his response.

“I do,” he told the former Biden White House press secretary.

Why? “Part of the reason is Donald Trump’s M.O. is obstruction of justice, it’s interference, it’s using one lawyer for a bunch of co-defendants to try to get them all singing on the same page,” Katyal explained.

Ex-DOJ Official Predicts More Indictments In Trump Election Subversion Case

 

[BritsKate]

My personal pet theory is that there will certainly be other indictments in relation to J6 but Smith quite purposefully built the case against Trump for speed. His team wants that case to come to trial as soon as possible. So, with that in mind -

- I think he'll hold off charging co-conspirators as long as possible so other Trump and other defendants can't ask for the Court to consolidate the cases because that would cause a massive delay. I don't know the timeline on this though. When is the case against Trump mature enough that it wouldn't be feasible to combine cases?

- Because the Trump indictment is so strategic, I think Jack Smith will be hesistant to bring superceding indictments against Trump. Not that he can't be indicted for other charges eventually but superceding indictments would again delay the trial. May be more prudent to see this case to its conclusion and then bring other indictments assuming they're within the statute of limitations.

- Money. Money. Money. Now, I'm not a lawyer but I think the one charge against Trump et al that is damned near inevitable is wire fraud. There's rumors that Trump's PAC fundraising off of lies is under investigation too.

So my money (pun not intended but we'll roll with it because I just woke up) is on either being ready to go after the co-conspirators or looking into all the shady money surrounding J6.
---------
And speaking of money! There was bombshell reporting yesterday about Ginni Thomas and Leonard Leo's roles in ensuring dark money could pour into conservative legal causes. I'm including a link (it is a VERY lengthy article) - some folks might not see the correlation but there simply aren't a whole lot of conservative lawyers as the profession is roughly 75% liberal. So the DC conservative legal circle is *tiny* but immensely powerful and all these people know each other and work and socialize with each other. As such, Cleta Mitchell (very close friend of Ginni Thomas) was also involved. She's escaped indictment, so far, but she too was involved with the conspiracy.

Almost all of these people are interconnected though, have the same goals, and enable one another to achieve those goals. It's important to remember that. (One of their chief aims for example was to curb oversight so I'm including a snippet about Cleta Mitchell. Another, as outlined in the article, was supporting Donald Trump.) All JMO

Those who claimed the IRS wasn’t properly scrutinizing such groups quickly ran into a powerful countermovement claiming the opposite.

Mitchell, the lawyer who had helped Thomas set up her own ill-fated nonprofit, began championing a public relations offensive to combat IRS scrutiny of the same nonprofits her allies were erecting. She claimed that the tax agency, then overseen by the Obama administration, was disproportionately targeting conservative groups and called for an independent counsel.

The agency “is so corrupt and so rotten to the core that it cannot be salvaged,” Mitchell said in 2014.

A two-year investigation by the Department of Justice “found no evidence that any IRS official acted based on political, discriminatory, corrupt or other inappropriate motives” and closed with no charges. It did find “substantial evidence of mismanagement, poor judgment and institutional inertia” as IRS officials cut corners to deal with an explosion of Tea Party-aligned nonprofit applications similar to Thomas’ group. But it also found that some progressive groups experienced similar processing delays and extra scrutiny.

What Ginni Thomas and Leonard Leo wrought: How a justice’s wife and a key activist started a movement

Thanks to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling, a trove of so-called "dark money" was about to be unleashed. Two activists prepared to seize the moment.

www.politico.com

-

 

[Inthedetails]

My personal pet theory is that there will certainly be other indictments in relation to J6 but Smith quite purposefully built the case against Trump for speed. His team wants that case to come to trial as soon as possible. So, with that in mind -

- I think he'll hold off charging co-conspirators as long as possible so other Trump and other defendants can't ask for the Court to consolidate the cases because that would cause a massive delay. I don't know the timeline on this though. When is the case against Trump mature enough that it wouldn't be feasible to combine cases?

- Because the Trump indictment is so strategic, I think Jack Smith will be hesistant to bring superceding indictments against Trump. Not that he can't be indicted for other charges eventually but superceding indictments would again delay the trial. May be more prudent to see this case to its conclusion and then bring other indictments assuming they're within the statute of limitations.

- Money. Money. Money. Now, I'm not a lawyer but I think the one charge against Trump et al that is damned near inevitable is wire fraud. There's rumors that Trump's PAC fundraising off of lies is under investigation too.

So my money (pun not intended but we'll roll with it because I just woke up) is on either being ready to go after the co-conspirators or looking into all the shady money surrounding J6.
---------
And speaking of money! There was bombshell reporting yesterday about Ginni Thomas and Leonard Leo's roles in ensuring dark money could pour into conservative legal causes. I'm including a link (it is a VERY lengthy article) - some folks might not see the correlation but there simply aren't a whole lot of conservative lawyers as the profession is roughly 75% liberal. So the DC conservative legal circle is *tiny* but immensely powerful and all these people know each other and work and socialize with each other. As such, Cleta Mitchell (very close friend of Ginni Thomas) was also involved. She's escaped indictment, so far, but she too was involved with the conspiracy.

Almost all of these people are interconnected though, have the same goals, and enable one another to achieve those goals. It's important to remember that. (One of their chief aims for example was to curb oversight so I'm including a snippet about Cleta Mitchell. Another, as outlined in the article, was supporting Donald Trump.) All JMO

What Ginni Thomas and Leonard Leo wrought: How a justice’s wife and a key activist started a movement

Thanks to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling, a trove of so-called "dark money" was about to be unleashed. Two activists prepared to seize the moment.

www.politico.com

-

I'm waiting for wire fraud and other money crimes to be included too. And there are some names I'm waiting to see on indictments too.

That will keep the excuse-makers busy. Prediction: "he's free to spend stolen money however he wants!" (Wish I were joking.)

jmo

p.s. The conservatives in that tight, powerful circle in D.C. probably can't stand Trump any more than the wealthy business community in NYC can stand him. He's never fit in the elite circles, but created a celebrity status for himself, which is not the same thing. So....why him?

 

[BritsKate]

I'm waiting for wire fraud and other money crimes to be included too. And there are some names I'm waiting to see on indictments too.

That will keep the excuse-makers busy. Prediction: "he's free to spend stolen money however he wants!" (Wish I were joking.)

jmo

p.s. The conservatives in that tight, powerful circle in D.C. probably can't stand Trump any more than the wealthy business community in NYC can stand him. He's never fit in the elite circles, but created a celebrity status for himself, which is not the same thing. So....why him?

RBBM
I actually think he's almost perfect for their aims. Think about it...

- He's overwhelmingly popular with the base and seen as a common man who tells it like it is.
- He's ignorant of the true power of the Presidency so it's easy for aides, advisors, conservative legal causes and legislators to get what THEY want out of a Trump presidency.
- He's the front man and takes the heat for any fallout. He's obnoxious, belligerent, ignorant and loud - and diverts attention from the people in the background.
- He's incredibly easy to manipulate. He loves himself and money so payoffs and fawning can swing him doing or allowing or advocating for things he doesn't even necessarily understand himself.
- He has built relationships across the globe with extremely wealthy, powerful people and Trump becomes a conduit to them. In the same vein, Trump loves the adulation when something goes right (like the Supreme Court) and most people don't realize that it's usually other people pulling strings to get things done. (McConnell and the FedSoc are responsible for the Supreme Court Justices chosen during Trump's term)
- May be able to assist in moving and hiding money using his businesses, banks abroad and shell companies - including illegal donations and dark money. (Remember he had a Chinese bank account the whole time he was President.)

Trump himself is an opportunistic malignant narcissist but he's also surrounded by opportunists who will allow him anything as long as they get what they want out of him. He's a bad person who is a useful tool for other bad people that flock to him.

I don't believe Trump ever was really President. He preferred the pomp and loved looking like a President but my opinion has always been that his cabinet, advisors, and aides formed an ad hoc Presidency in his absence to do the actual work of the office while he enjoyed "executive time".

JMO

 

[Inthedetails]

RBBM
I actually think he's almost perfect for their aims. Think about it...

- He's overwhelmingly popular with the base as seen as a common man who tells it like it is.
- He's ignorant of the true power of the Presidency so it's easy for aides, advisors, conservative legal causes and legislators to get what THEY want out of a Trump presidency.
- He's the front man and takes the heat for any fallout. He's obnoxious, belligerent, ignorant and loud - and diverts attention from the people in the background.
- He's incredibly easy to manipulate. He loves himself and money so payoffs and fawning can swing him doing or allowing or advocating for things he doesn't even necessarily understand himself.
- He has built relationships across the globe with extremely wealthy, powerful people and Trump becomes a conduit to them. In the same vein, Trump loves the adulation when something goes right (like the Supreme Court) and most people don't realize that it's usually other people pulling strings to get things done. (McConnell and the FedSoc are responsible for the Supreme Court Justices chosen during Trump's term)
- May be able to assist in moving and hiding money using his businesses, banks abroad and shell companies - including illegal donations and dark money. (Remember he had a Chinese bank account the whole time he was President.)

Trump himself is an opportunistic malignant narcissist but he's also surrounded by opportunists who will allow him anything as long as they get what they want out of him. He's a bad person who is a useful tool for other bad people that flock to him.

I don't believe Trump was ever truly President. He preferred the pomp and loved looking like a President but my opinion has always been that his cabinet, advisors, and aides formed an ad hoc Presidency in his absence.

JMO

I agree - and have for years! I just wish his supporters would consider seeing him in this light.

jmo

 

[Lilibet]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/11/politics/trump-wild-rhetoric-2024/index.html

CNN —
Donald Trump is conjuring his most foreboding vision yet of a possible second term, telling supporters in language resonant of the run-up to the January 6 mob attack on the US Capitol that they need to “fight like hell” or they will lose their country.

The rhetorical escalation from the four-times-indicted ex-president came at a rally in South Dakota on Friday night where he accused his possible 2024 opponent, President Joe Biden, of ordering his indictment on 91 charges across four criminal cases as a form of election interference.

“I don’t think there’s ever been a darkness around our nation like there is now,” Trump said, in a dystopian speech in which he accused Democrats of allowing an “invasion” of migrants over the southern border and of trying to restart Covid “hysteria.”

The Republican front-runner’s stark speech raised the prospect of a second presidency that would be even more extreme and challenging to the rule of law than his first. His view that the Oval Office confers unfettered powers suggests Trump would indulge in similar conduct as that for which he is awaiting trial, including intimidating local officials in an alleged bid to overturn his 2020 defeat.

 

[branmuffin]

BBM. I think this is the first time I've heard a prosecutor express worry that a defendant's statements would "prejudice" the jury pool before trial even gets started. I guess the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty' only works for defendants who are not politicians. smh

JMO

Most defendants aren't prior presidents with a penchant for verbally abusing their enemies, willfully lying about election results, employing character assassinations on anyone who he considers an enemy, and slyly instructing their followers to employ violence to get what they want. Most defendants don't have the ability to broadcast all those comments, suggestions, threats and lies 24/7 365 days a year. I'd appreciate an example of someone else who has that ability to sway juries regardless of the crime. While some people consider Trump's bluster and threats as entertainment they are anything but.

 

[sds71]

DEFENDANT DONALD J. TRUMP’S MOTION FOR RECUSAL OF DISTRICT JUDGE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 455(a)

Judge Chutkan has, in connection with other cases, suggested that President Trump should be prosecuted and imprisoned. Such statements, made before this case began and without due process, are inherently disqualifying. Although Judge Chutkan may genuinely intend to give President Trump a fair trial—and may believe that she can do so—her public statements unavoidably taint these proceedings, regardless of outcome.
The public will reasonably and understandably question whether Judge Chutkan arrived at all of her decisions in this matter impartially , or in fulfillment of her prior negative statements regarding President Trump.
Under these circumstances, the law and the overwhelming public interest in the integrity of this historic proceeding require recusal…

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.50.0_4.pdf

 

[SouthAussie]

DEFENDANT DONALD J. TRUMP’S MOTION FOR RECUSAL OF DISTRICT JUDGE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 455(a)

Judge Chutkan has, in connection with other cases, suggested that President Trump should be prosecuted and imprisoned. Such statements, made before this case began and without due process, are inherently disqualifying. Although Judge Chutkan may genuinely intend to give President Trump a fair trial—and may believe that she can do so—her public statements unavoidably taint these proceedings, regardless of outcome.
The public will reasonably and understandably question whether Judge Chutkan arrived at all of her decisions in this matter impartially , or in fulfillment of her prior negative statements regarding President Trump.
Under these circumstances, the law and the overwhelming public interest in the integrity of this historic proceeding require recusal…

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.50.0_4.pdf

Par for the course. DT's lawyers have a certain methodology for causing little bumps in the road.

DT requested the recusal of Supreme Court Judge Juan Merchan in May (NY hush money case). His motion was denied in August.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/08/14/trump-merchan-new-york-judge-recuse/

 

[Inthedetails]

Par for the course. DT's lawyers have a certain methodology for causing little bumps in the road.

DT requested the recusal of Supreme Court Judge Juan Merchan in May (NY hush money case). His motion was denied in August.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/08/14/trump-merchan-new-york-judge-recuse/

Right, he's been down the road enough times to have a route.

If he misses the exit with this attempt, he'll go a few miles and try another way.

jmo

 

[sds71]

@AWeissmann_


Everything Judge Chutkan said is true. She deals with a J6 defendant’s argument that higher ups have not been prosecuted and say it’s true but irrelevant. Trump now says that is a reference to him, which is an admission he exhorted the violence on J6.


@gtconway3d

A careful reading of this excerpt from Trump’s recusal brief shows it’s not Judge Chutkan who has expressed the view that P01135809 “was responsible for the events of January 6,” but rather Trump’s lawyers, via *their* assumption that their client planned the attack.

 

[MyBelle]

Most defendants aren't prior presidents with a penchant for verbally abusing their enemies, willfully lying about election results, employing character assassinations on anyone who he considers an enemy, and slyly instructing their followers to employ violence to get what they want. Most defendants don't have the ability to broadcast all those comments, suggestions, threats and lies 24/7 365 days a year. I'd appreciate an example of someone else who has that ability to sway juries regardless of the crime. While some people consider Trump's bluster and threats as entertainment they are anything but.

It doesn't matter if the defendant is a prior politician. He has the same right to free political speech, Due Process and a fair trial with an impartial Judge as every other citizen.

JMO

 

[BritsKate]

All the motions I've seen across the two election related cases today are really throw everything at the courtroom walls and hope to hell something sticks.

Extremely high burden for recusal. (I kinda wanna buy a gavel just so I can bang it and scream 'DENIED!' when I'm reading these motions btw. I'm not sure how normal that is. )

JMO

 

[sds71]

@KatiePhang

UPDATE: Judge Chutkan enters briefing order for the Government and for Trump.

 

[Stunned]

All the motions I've seen across the two election related cases today are really throw everything at the courtroom walls and hope to hell something sticks.

Extremely high burden for recusal. (I kinda wanna buy a gavel just so I can bang it and scream 'DENIED!' when I'm reading these motions btw. I'm not sure how normal that is. )

JMO

You’re in luck! Amazon has gavels!

 

[Inthedetails]

@KatiePhang

UPDATE: Judge Chutkan enters briefing order for the Government and for Trump.

So, defendant didn't follow the rules when filing the motion? Why not, I wonder. (Not really wondering, no reply needed, lol)

jmo

 

[BritsKate]

You’re in luck! Amazon has gavels!

Thanks for the tip! I'm sure my family will love it.
------------------

Supreme Court ruling, 1994, Liteky vs. United States

The judge who presides at a trial may, upon completion of the evidence, be exceedingly ill disposed towards the defendant, who has been shown to be a thoroughly reprehensible person. But the judge is not thereby recusable for bias or prejudice, since his knowledge and the opinion it produced were properly and necessarily acquired in the course of the proceedings, and are indeed sometimes (as in a bench trial) necessary to completion of the judge's task. As Judge Jerome Frank pithily put it: "Impartiality is not gullibility. Disinterestedness does not mean child like innocence. If the judge did not form judgments of the actors in those court house dramas called trials, he could never render decisions."

Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994).

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[branmuffin]

It doesn't matter if the defendant is a prior politician. He has the same right to free political speech, Due Process and a fair trial with an impartial Judge as every other citizen.

JMO

So you don't think his public platform provided free by every media site influences potential voters? All the venom he spews regarding the 'slimeballs', 'thugs' "biased and UNFAIR', 'witch hunts', etc has no impact whatsoever?

 

[Lilibet]

It doesn't matter if the defendant is a prior politician. He has the same right to free political speech, Due Process and a fair trial with an impartial Judge as every other citizen.

JMO

That is not the point. You zeroed in on only the thought that Trump is a “prior” politician for your argument about “free political speech, due process and a fair trial with an impartial judge as every other citizen.” Of course he has the same right as a private citizen. But you ignored the main point @branmuffin made that Trump has a forum most people don’t have regardless of his prior employment. I will requote it for you. The reason the judge is limiting his speech is that Trump is someone who has…

“a penchant for verbally abusing their enemies, willfully lying about election results, employing character assassinations on anyone who he considers an enemy, and slyly instructing their followers to employ violence to get what they want. Most defendants don't have the ability to broadcast all those comments, suggestions, threats and lies 24/7 365 days a year. I'd appreciate an example of someone else who has that ability to sway juries regardless of the crime. While some people consider Trump's bluster and threats as entertainment they are anything but.”

It is for this reason that the judge is within her rights to restrict his pre-trial “free speech,” and it makes no difference whether he is the former President or the guy down the block with a huge Xitter following. He uses his influence and speech in a way that is the antithesis of a fair trial. And we all know that he knows *exactly* what he is doing. She is trying to make sure he doesn’t corrupt the process.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

So you don't think his public platform provided free by every media site influences potential voters? All the venom he spews regarding the 'slimeballs', 'thugs' "biased and UNFAIR', 'witch hunts', etc has no impact whatsoever?

I think the very public bias the Judge in this case expressed against Trump prior to his indictment will have more influence over the jury pool than whatever Trump says at this point.

JMO