The Trump Criminal Case MEGATHREAD.

[Res Ipsa]

The Supreme Court has granted Trump review of the Court of Appeals decision that affirmed the trial court's denial of Trump's motion to dismiss based on presidential immunity. The Court set an accelerated briefing schedule, with argument scheduled for April 18. While this directly affects only the January 6 conspiracy case, Trump has also asserted presidential immunity in the Florida documents case. He will likely seek a stay until the Supreme Court rules on presidential immunity. As the documents case does not address Trump's actions while he was president, Trump is likely to argue that, whatever his duties are under the Presidential Records law, they are presidential duties. There are several ways procedurally Judge Cannon could handle the immunity motion -- we'll just have to see.

Because presidential immunity protects the president from being prosecuted, not just tried, it is possible that Trump will request a stay in the Georgia lawsuit.

The Supreme Court's decision to rule on the immunity issue should not affect the fourth criminal case: the NY hush money case. The events in that case preceded Trump's election. It is still scheduled to begin March 25.

[Manetho]

It obvious that the court is trying to delay Trump's trials further. Smith asked in December to skip the DC circuit and have the Supreme Court hear this appeal immediately to get this nonsensical appeal shot down immediately; they refused. Then, after the DC circuit writes a thorough opinion shooting it down, they agree to hear it seven weeks down the road, making a verdict before the election virtually impossible. It's blatant sabotage of the justice system.

This court is simply disgusting.

[Moksha]

The the Supreme Court has defined a new role for themselves as being a partisan court. Their deliberations will begin April 22 and will conclude at an unknown date.

[Res Ipsa]

It obvious that the court is trying to delay Trump's trials further. Smith asked in December to skip the DC circuit and have the Supreme Court hear this appeal immediately to get this nonsensical appeal shot down immediately; they refused. Then, after the DC circuit writes a thorough opinion shooting it down, they agree to hear it seven weeks down the road, making a verdict before the election virtually impossible? It's blatant sabotage of the justice system.

This court is simply disgusting.

I don't think that's what's going on. It is very rare for the Court to take a case before it has been ruled on by the Court of Appeals. There's a good reason for that, especially on a case of first impression. The Court of Appeals allows the parties to more thoroughly brief the relevant issues, which gives the Supremes a better look at the issues than a District Court Motion would provide. Court of Appeals opinions also tend to be more detailed and thorough than District Court opinions.

This is a pivotal point in U.S. History. Trump's claim of criminal immunity goes to the heart of the checks and balances in the system set up by the framers. One of the problems I have heard raised with the Court of Appeals opinion is that it doesn't address certain core presidential activities that perhaps should be immune from criminal prosecution. The example raised by Trump's lawyers that is not well addressed is the drone assassination issue. Could Trump or Obama be prosecuted for murder for ordering drone strikes on suspected terrorists? Doing so would arguably violate U.S. law. The Court may be concerned that the Court of Appeals opinion is too broad. Another factor that affected the court could be that Trump raised the same argument in the documents case.

I personally can't imagine the Supreme Court not weighing in on the immunity issue. If we're going to imprison a former president based on acts committed during the presidency, the highest court in the country needs to put its imprimatur on the decision. I think the issue is critical, and I think getting the issue right is far more important than the timing of the criminal trials. Other democracies have been able to successfully apply their criminal law to former presidents/prime ministers. But, without appropriate safeguards and even limits, authoritarian governments can misuse criminal prosecutions to punish their political enemies. And, if recent history is any guide, the odds of abuse by a Republican president are much, much higher than abuse by Biden or a future D President.

I'm confident that this court is not going to extend immunity to conspiring to overturn the results of a presidential election. It may be unanimous (although I'm not too sure that Thomas cares). If I'm right, then this conservative court is the perfect court to decide the issue. The Trump cult will try, but it will be hard to argue that their hand-picked, conservative court, was part of the liberal deep state.

[Doctor Steuss]

The example raised by Trump's lawyers that is not well addressed is the drone assassination issue. Could Trump or Obama be prosecuted for murder for ordering drone strikes on suspected terrorists? Doing so would arguably violate U.S. law.

Does US law have jurisdiction for actions committed on non-US soil or territories? I would think the drone strikes would be outside of what US courts could pursue. Although, I guess technically, conspiracy to commit murder was on US soil... is that where it would theoretically fall?

[Res Ipsa]

The example raised by Trump's lawyers that is not well addressed is the drone assassination issue. Could Trump or Obama be prosecuted for murder for ordering drone strikes on suspected terrorists? Doing so would arguably violate U.S. law.

Does US law have jurisdiction for actions committed on non-US soil or territories? I would think the drone strikes would be outside of what US courts could pursue. Although, I guess technically, conspiracy to commit murder was on US soil... is that where it would theoretically fall?

I'd have to double check. But given that the allegedly illegal act (giving the order) took place in the U.S., I think there would be jurisdiction.

[Res Ipsa]

The Prosecution filed responses to Trump's motions to dismiss in the Florida document case:

Presidential immunity:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .376.0.pdf

Presidential Records Act:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .373.0.pdf

Selective and Vindictive Prosecution:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 75.0_1.pdf

I'd hate to be on the other side of the team of lawyers representing the prosecution. These are damn good briefs.

Here's the test for Judge Cannon: Trump has the right to an immediate appeal of the first motion unless she makes a written finding that Trump's motion was frivolous. If she simply dismisses the motion, the case stops while the issue is appealed -- just as what happened in the DC Conspiracy case. Trump's motion asserts that former presidents have criminal immunity for crimes they commit after leaving office. The prosecution makes a pretty convincing argument that the motion was made purely to delay the case: immunity motions are supposed to be brought as soon as possible. In the DC case, Trump's lawyers raised immunity as a defense at the first status conference and filed a motion to dismiss in the first month or so. In the documents case, Trump's lawyers didn't even mention immunity as a defense until eight months after charges were filed. That, plus the absence of any legal support for ex-presidential immunity, is a pretty good argument that the motion is frivolous. It will be interesting to see how the judge rules.

[Res Ipsa]

The judge in the Georgia conspiracy case has dismissed six of the 30+ counts against various defendants. The six counts all allege solicitation of another government officer or employee to violate their oath of office. The indictment alleges in each count that the oath violations were to uphold the Georgia and U.S. Constitutions. Those counts were dismissed because the indictment does not specify which provisions of those constitutions defendants solicited the others to violate.

This is a pretty technical pleading requirement, but it's important to preserve the rights of defendants. Under GA law, the indictment needs to be sufficiently specific to allow defendants to prepare an adequate defense. Both the U.S. and GA constitutions are lengthy documents with lots of provisions. The judge essentially held that defendants are entitled to know which provisions of both constitutions are relevant to the charge.

The judge gave the prosecution six months to convene a supplemental grand jury to recharge the six counts with the required specificity. Alternatively, the judge certified the dismissal for an immediate appeal. Some states have a mechanism to fix this kind of technical defect in an indictment more quickly. Apparently, GA does not.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/document ... e_manual_4

[Res Ipsa]

Judge Cannon has denied Trump’s motion to dismiss that claimed the Espionage Act as charged is unconstitutionally vague. The denial is without prejudice, as she felt the motion was premature. Accounts of the hearing report that she expressed skepticism about the merits of Trump’s other motions. https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/trump-exp ... =108092856

[Res Ipsa]

Judge McAfee has denied motions to dismiss the Georgia RICO case and disqualify DA Willis and her office. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... disqualify

However, he found that the relationship between Willis and Assistant DA Wade presented an "appearance of impropriety." As a remedy, he ordered that either Wade can resign or that Willis and her office can resign. I doubt that's a tough call.